I'm proud that MBS has produced an author of this calibre :) Alexa told me about this article in The Star, it would reach more people than all our road-show combined! Hope that I can shake hands with him and say Kudos! Dun Miss this informative forum by Kairos!
Thomas Lee Seng Hock has been a journalist and editor for more than 30 years. He did his undergraduate theological studies in Singapore and Australia, and obtained his Master in Ministry from the Malaysia Bible Seminary.
... On the Bible, The Da Vinci Code states: "The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God? The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great" (Page 250).
The claim is definitely false. The Bible was not collated or compiled at one particular time, and Emperor Constantine had nothing to do with the process, either before or after he converted to Christianity.
The Old Testament, for example, had been forming for centuries. Jesus and the apostles already recognised the authority of the Old Testament that existed in their time (Luke 24:27, John 5:39, Acts 17:2-3, 2 Tim 3:15).
In the first century, the apostles and their associates wrote the books of the New Testament, which were passed down to succeeding generations of Christians and read in the churches. In the second and third centuries, Gnostic heretics began to manufacture writings that falsely claimed to be from the apostles, but since they had not been passed down in the churches from the beginning, they were rejected. In response to these new, false writings the churches drew up lists of the authentic books that had been handed down from the apostles. A famous list of the sacred writings from the mid-second century is known as the Muratorian Canon.
The process by which the canon of the Bible was established was largely complete by the time of Constantine in the early fourth century, and the emperor definitely made no contribution to it, except perhaps to permit its circulation. There were a few Old Testament books, known as the deuterocanonical books or "apocrypha", that continued to be discussed after Constantine's time, into the late fourth century – further illustrating that he did not collate the composition of the Bible. No Bible scholar holds that Constantine played such a role in the development and canonization of the Bible. Dan Brown is obviously and simply wrong.
The Da Vinci Code makes a sweeping claim regarding the early Church's recognition of Jesus Christ's divinity. Referring to the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in AD325, it states: “Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet ... a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal ... By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable” (Page 253).
It is true that Emperor Constantine, following his conversion to Christinity, convened and presided over the Council of Nicaea, but it is surely not true to say that that he "turned Jesus into a deity" at the conclusion of the council meeting or that Christians had not viewed or believed the Lord Jesus Christ as God prior to this event.
The ecumenical council was called to settle over what has been known in church history as the infamous Arian controversy. The dispute that had arisen when a pastor from Alexandria in Egypt named Arius promoted the teaching that Jesus Christ was not divine, thus causing a scandal by repudiating the faith of Christians everywhere.
Arius was apparently influential in his teaching and had many followers called Arians. The controversy between the Arians and orthodox Christians grew so sharp that Emperor Constantine called the council to settle the matter. Constantine is believed have personally supported the Arian position, but he recognised the authority of the bishops in articulating the faith and its doctrines. The bishops meeting at the council subsequently reaffirmed the traditional Christian position that Jesus Christ was fully divine, endorsing the historic Christian doctrine against Arius and his followers. Constantine obviously had no choice but to recognise the bishops’ authority and decision to do so although he would have preferred the Arian position.
What was the position of the believers prior to this definitive Council of Nicaea? What evidence is there that they regarded Jesus Christ as God before Nicaea?
First of all, it is common knowledge that the deity of Jesus Christ is taught and emphasised in the New Testament. (See, for example, Matthew 1:23, John 1:1, John 5:18, John 6:69, John 8:58,59, John 20:28, Phil 2:5-11, Colossians 2:9). Any casual reading of the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s letters, the book of Hebrews, the general letters of James, John, and Jude, and the book of Revelation will show that the belief in the deity of Jesus Christ is central theme of the New Testament.
And this is the teaching of the apostles and the early church more than three hundred years before Emperor Constantine and his Nicaea meeting. To claim that it was only at Nicaea that Constantine “upgraded” Jesus Christ to the divine status is a blatant lie.
Secondly, the early church fathers had been teaching and preaching about the deity of Jesus Christ for decades prior to the ecumenical meeting at Nicaea. Listen to what some of them said:
– Justin Martyr (AD150): "(Jesus is) the first begotten Word of God, is even God.”
– Tatian the Syrian (AD170): "We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man."
– Irenaeus (AD185): "Jesus of Nazareth ... is our Lord and God and Saviour and King.”
– Clement of Alexandria (AD200): "The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning – or he was in God – and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things."
– Tertullian (AD210): "God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God."
– Origen (AD225): "Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God."
So to allege that the deity of Jesus Christ was the creation of Constantine and the bishops meeting at Nicaea is sheer nonsense, and intellectually dishonest.
... Brown in the "fact" page at the beginning of his novel has asserted historicity for several claims on the Priory of Sion, the Opus Dei, and the descriptions of art, architecture, and rituals found in the book. Brown writes his book in such a way that gives the impression that its claims about the Priory of Sion, the Catholic Church, and the institutions and societies associated with the Church are to be taken seriously. Obviously, many of the claims need to be taken with a tonne of salt.
Thomas Lee Seng Hock has been a journalist and editor for more than 30 years. He did his undergraduate theological studies in Singapore and Australia, and obtained his Master in Ministry from the Malaysia Bible Seminary.
... On the Bible, The Da Vinci Code states: "The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God? The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great" (Page 250).
The claim is definitely false. The Bible was not collated or compiled at one particular time, and Emperor Constantine had nothing to do with the process, either before or after he converted to Christianity.
The Old Testament, for example, had been forming for centuries. Jesus and the apostles already recognised the authority of the Old Testament that existed in their time (Luke 24:27, John 5:39, Acts 17:2-3, 2 Tim 3:15).
In the first century, the apostles and their associates wrote the books of the New Testament, which were passed down to succeeding generations of Christians and read in the churches. In the second and third centuries, Gnostic heretics began to manufacture writings that falsely claimed to be from the apostles, but since they had not been passed down in the churches from the beginning, they were rejected. In response to these new, false writings the churches drew up lists of the authentic books that had been handed down from the apostles. A famous list of the sacred writings from the mid-second century is known as the Muratorian Canon.
The process by which the canon of the Bible was established was largely complete by the time of Constantine in the early fourth century, and the emperor definitely made no contribution to it, except perhaps to permit its circulation. There were a few Old Testament books, known as the deuterocanonical books or "apocrypha", that continued to be discussed after Constantine's time, into the late fourth century – further illustrating that he did not collate the composition of the Bible. No Bible scholar holds that Constantine played such a role in the development and canonization of the Bible. Dan Brown is obviously and simply wrong.
The Da Vinci Code makes a sweeping claim regarding the early Church's recognition of Jesus Christ's divinity. Referring to the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in AD325, it states: “Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet ... a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal ... By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable” (Page 253).
It is true that Emperor Constantine, following his conversion to Christinity, convened and presided over the Council of Nicaea, but it is surely not true to say that that he "turned Jesus into a deity" at the conclusion of the council meeting or that Christians had not viewed or believed the Lord Jesus Christ as God prior to this event.
The ecumenical council was called to settle over what has been known in church history as the infamous Arian controversy. The dispute that had arisen when a pastor from Alexandria in Egypt named Arius promoted the teaching that Jesus Christ was not divine, thus causing a scandal by repudiating the faith of Christians everywhere.
Arius was apparently influential in his teaching and had many followers called Arians. The controversy between the Arians and orthodox Christians grew so sharp that Emperor Constantine called the council to settle the matter. Constantine is believed have personally supported the Arian position, but he recognised the authority of the bishops in articulating the faith and its doctrines. The bishops meeting at the council subsequently reaffirmed the traditional Christian position that Jesus Christ was fully divine, endorsing the historic Christian doctrine against Arius and his followers. Constantine obviously had no choice but to recognise the bishops’ authority and decision to do so although he would have preferred the Arian position.
What was the position of the believers prior to this definitive Council of Nicaea? What evidence is there that they regarded Jesus Christ as God before Nicaea?
First of all, it is common knowledge that the deity of Jesus Christ is taught and emphasised in the New Testament. (See, for example, Matthew 1:23, John 1:1, John 5:18, John 6:69, John 8:58,59, John 20:28, Phil 2:5-11, Colossians 2:9). Any casual reading of the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s letters, the book of Hebrews, the general letters of James, John, and Jude, and the book of Revelation will show that the belief in the deity of Jesus Christ is central theme of the New Testament.
And this is the teaching of the apostles and the early church more than three hundred years before Emperor Constantine and his Nicaea meeting. To claim that it was only at Nicaea that Constantine “upgraded” Jesus Christ to the divine status is a blatant lie.
Secondly, the early church fathers had been teaching and preaching about the deity of Jesus Christ for decades prior to the ecumenical meeting at Nicaea. Listen to what some of them said:
– Justin Martyr (AD150): "(Jesus is) the first begotten Word of God, is even God.”
– Tatian the Syrian (AD170): "We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man."
– Irenaeus (AD185): "Jesus of Nazareth ... is our Lord and God and Saviour and King.”
– Clement of Alexandria (AD200): "The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning – or he was in God – and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things."
– Tertullian (AD210): "God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God."
– Origen (AD225): "Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God."
So to allege that the deity of Jesus Christ was the creation of Constantine and the bishops meeting at Nicaea is sheer nonsense, and intellectually dishonest.
... Brown in the "fact" page at the beginning of his novel has asserted historicity for several claims on the Priory of Sion, the Opus Dei, and the descriptions of art, architecture, and rituals found in the book. Brown writes his book in such a way that gives the impression that its claims about the Priory of Sion, the Catholic Church, and the institutions and societies associated with the Church are to be taken seriously. Obviously, many of the claims need to be taken with a tonne of salt.
Comments
well i read your article,and that was interesting to me,as it was the oppsite of what i think...i love to read things from differnt pionts of view,and urs was interesting...
I think you must put perjudice aside and look at the book differently..dan brown did sth that made me say: YES!!!!!
don't know how much you know about history or linguistics,but if you read just a bit more you'll find things you can't believe..
the bad part is that we usu start to fight for this book or that book is against our religious thoughts and believes but look more deeply my friend...see what you have faith in...
i think for every belief there must be a reason..
so things to make us feel like doubt are good as they are the steps to help you reach the top..
don't get angry they are help...
just look differently,without pride and prejudice..
Thanks for caring to drop by and let me know ur thots on the article.
DVC is great fiction, i agree!
But when we confuse fact w fiction, we're in trouble
Firstly the article's not mine :) I'm also not sure which part in the article shows pride or prejudice, could you enlighten me?
Or do we just assume those who differ with our views are by default proud or prejudicial? :)
Secondly, I wud luv to hear what it is abt the book that made u say YES! :) my guess is the supposedly 'feminist' statements.
(Putting pride and prejudice aside, one may really wonder if pagan spirituality that promotes sexual, orgy in fact, dishonors and demeans women's body?)
thats really good to talk about such a thing and make clear all the question marks in our heads and act like some kinda sharing our opinion about such interesting things..
ok,as a matter of fact I've read the da vinci code in two versions,persian and english,one outstanding character the persian version has is that the translators were so knowledgable,and brought facts in foot-notes that made so many things clear..they showed us that how much this novel is based on the ignored part of the human history and ancient cultures..
so they helped us to have a different and more touchable understanding and view toward the novel.
and now we can understand that this novel is a fact-fiction, in style of Isaac Asimov,the russian writer..but the difference is that Isaac asimov went through future,but Dan Brown went through ignored past!!!
about why I said YES while reading the book,thats not because of the feminist or male chauvanism,it's about the balance between two sexes..the balance which the nature has formed during thousands of years..and if you wannna know more there is a complete information in the book..
and about NEMO,there would be np if a fish dances or sings,as in this way it would be easier to discover the world and human nature because of the similarities we are searching in the nature to know the mystries of life...you can never speak sure about anything(like saying its impossible to see such a thing in reality) in this world,u can just say ur opinion that if u try to fresh it then u will be alive!!!!!
love to talk to u more...we enjoy sharing our experiences with anyone who is interested..
Thanks for the interaction...
Well, if watching Finding Nemo makes a person believes that fish can sing and stingrays can dance, I think that if he or she is on the verge of insanity! :D
If we can believe that Nemo the talking fish is a fact, no wonder we cant tell the difference between fact and fiction in DVC!
When reason is gone, we will blindly believe wat we see on the movie screen.
Let's be open minded, ladies and gentlemen.. But dun let it be so open that our brains fall off, hehe...
Let's be reasonable too!
I could understand how the persian version wud include footnotes to shore up the lack of documentation in the original DVC for its own agenda :)
But could you share if any of the footnotes of 'ignored past' contradict any part of the statements made in the article above?
It seems that the author has given some solid reasons why Dan Brown's version of history was more 'fictional' than fact :)
Btw on the balance between the two sexes, Persian gal, you are making sense for once!
I do agree that male and female complement each other too! That's great... But the pagan spirituality that DVC promotes which revels in sexual orgy in fact dishonors and demeans women's body, perhaps?
I dunno...
Wat do u think? :)
So you think that we are on the verge of insanity!!! :D:P
the point is that how we can find the distinction between fact and fiction.have you ever seen the"fact" T.V serial? It talked about can we really put any difference between fact and fiction.That later It proved that you can never ever say what is fact and what is fiction.things may seem so weird and odd to you but they are real!!! so never be so sure about what you talk about..
I wonder if you know the philosophy behind movie-making,and as you know there are lots of different kinds of movie: criminal,romantic,etc.anyway what we are talking about is THE BOOK not the movie.
YES we do agree with you,we have to be open minded...but whenever you'll be able you find a limitation for human's understanding of the world( sciences,Arts,etc) then you can calime that if you go beyond the borthers you will fall off..
and even if you fall off, you can still feel those who put their lives in danger for just jumping out of the plane to feel the excitement of flying without wings!!!
the other thing about being reasonable!!!well none of the biggest people in the world,the genius ones,were never understood in their time,and they were rapidly said to be reasonable,that they may be insane,and that what they are saying is absolutely wrong!!
how can we be so sure about facts when we can't still prove that 2+2=4 ???? when we can't talk about anything so sure in physics,math,medicin,history,and ofcourse Literature..
we don't think that there is any lack of documentation in the original DVC for someone who is familiar with the European culture and history,what we were talking about was that the translators,for helping us understand this culture and history more,added things to relate that to our own cultur eand history,but we can asure you that there is no lack of documentation in DVC..
we'll be soo happy to share the foot-notes with you,so that this negative view may be gone..if there is any question about any part of the book,well,you are very welcome to ask and we'll try our best to answer you back..
about the paganism and what they do for worshiping,well,honor and dishonor is sth that our culture teaches us,and culture is sth based on many things like emotions,religions,etc.so as you see reason has a very little part in culture!!
we can understand what you say,you can definetely have your own way,and we are not telling that it's wrong,we are just trying to share our thoughts(which we think is not wrong too)there is no fighting,it's just and JUST sharing...hope we haven't offended you,though you did!!!
by teh way,come and write your comments in our blog too,so that our visitors be able to participate in our discussion..
thanks buddy
I'm curious Persian gal: Do you take your statement, "It talked about can we really put any difference between fact and fiction.That later It proved that you can never ever say what is fact and what is fiction.things may seem so weird and odd to you but they are real!!! so never be so sure about what you talk about.." as a fact?
It does seem quite contradictory to tell someone that one can never say what is fact and what is fiction, then should I take your statement then as fiction? :P Sounds quite self-defeating doesn't it?
And what's this nonsense that it cannot be proven that 2+2=4? Even my little kid cousin knows that 2+2=4 and if he claims that it is otherwise, guess who will scold him? His kindergarten teacher! And hmm, if I get even my basic arithmetic wrong now especially if I were back in university, my, I'd failed physics, maths. Now come on, persian gal, surely you're kidding us here. No?
Falling off a plane without a parachute ... man that's suicide.
As for your comments, "we can understand what you say,you can definetely have your own way,and we are not telling that it's wrong,we are just trying to share our thoughts(which we think is not wrong too)", how can both be right if your views are divergent from each other? There's such a thing as the law of non-contradiction you know.
But that there are some who actually believe that the Da Vinci Code is more than a novel... well, thanks for making my day :P - Never had such fun and laughter today!
Cheers!
Tensen
PS: Looking forward to when you will actually post the footnotes.
Somehow I feel people who jump out of the plane to feel the excitement of flying without wings do so with a parachute on their back! :)
Life is much more complex that reason alone... ya, like u said, sometimes we are led by emotion or religious faith as well.
But being blindly led by adrenalin or religion alone, without the guidance of clear reasonable thinking, is dangerous indeed. That is after all, the downfall of the albino monk in Da Vinci Code.
He is sincerely religious and the emotional security given by the corrupt Cardinal helps overcome the insecurity of his deprived youth.. Alas! He was not very smart, and easily manipulated by bad people to kill and steal.
If clear thinking reason, like that of Langdon's, has little part to play in our lives, we'd end up hoodwinked by book publishers who capitalise on Dan Brown's success!
Persian gal, I dun think we wanna live a life like that, rite?
Like Sophie, we gotta be brave enuff to know the truth. And boy, the truth will set us free!
Just about 2 weeks ago,i attended a Da Vinci furom held by a Top professor and serveral lecturer frm UM.
Well looks like Da Vincci cannot be trusted a source for history.
Its ok if Mr brown promote it as a novel but to say that his books are base on facts is a lie.
Alot of historian (iam not taking about christian,but non-christian as well) disagree with Mr brown.
One of the most ridicules teory is the picture of the Last Supper,saying that Mary M is sitting beside Jesus,i wonder wher did Mr brown got that?
If you will notice,Da vincci painted that last supper picture according to his style and tradition of his time.Many male protraits of da vinci time actually look like females, so here is the answer why that disiple on His right look like a female.
Now another logic is If that is MAry M on His right,then where is John and Judas ? Judas could hav already left the scence to betray the Son of God,if thats Mary M on His right,where is John?
That pic we see 12 diciples + Jesus.
Thats my 2 cent i got from the furom.
Vincent Thong
‘Subjectivism’ as reality could be a comfortable (and noble) stance to take, but one may be disillusioned as to the meaning of truth, even the meaning of life when the ‘All is BOLEH’ concept is made the cornerstone of our belief. During my teaching vocation in UK last year, I was exposed to the teaching and learning philosophy that hails the reality as a social construct, ie, defined by culture, religion and social interpretations. And the outcome from this philosophy is ultimately an emergence of a secular society in Britain that is overwhelmed by increasing social problems and disillusionment amongst the young generations. Divorce is so widely accepted as norm in the society just because the majority thinks so, and there seems to be ‘valid’ case for it. Hence it’s seen as just like ‘another break-up in a courtship due to unresolved differences’. Children are raised without much emphasis on spiritual upbringing; – and today, UK is struggling in vain with the rising teenage crimes which could anytime be gravely worse than our Malaysian horror cases. It could be a reflection of what happens when ‘anything could be true’.
While I would acknowledge the DVC is indeed an interesting novel, full of suspense and unpredictable outcome; it should not be confused as anything more than a sensational thriller which weaves facts with unreserved fabrications. It would be tragic if anyone would regard this novel as the revelation of truth and historical evidences as distortions, just because the conspiracy theories sound so convincing and ‘possible’.
If this is the basis of embracing the ‘truth’, we would be need to deal with the problem of dealing with GIGO (or is it just ‘Garbage In’ only). I’ve watched the VCD produced by the Daily bread, and one comment which I found interesting is the extent to which DVC has crossed the boundaries of ‘normal’ historical fictions. The ‘normal’ historical fiction would usually have the historical facts as the background, but the characters are made-up, e.g. Pearl Harbour – it is historically sound in its setting, but the love story is ‘added onto’ that setting. But as for DVC, it has gone far beyond into mixing up the facts and fictions like ‘rojak’. It is as if like in a historical fiction based on the World War II setting, but Hitler is declared to have won the war and Churchill is thrown into the prison!
So if someone comes up with another novel or movie which is equally (if not more) convincing and sensational, let us be discerning and selective in what is deemed to be facts and what is fiction. And that would entail much research and discussions with various parties. Let us not rush into endorsing the speculations of similar type of novels/movies/articles as there will bound to be more to come! Anyone thinking of writing another ‘success story’? - ‘The Michaelangelo Puzzle’ or ‘The Raphael’s Sudoko’ perhaps?
Bcos so many christians today pin hope that such views will open up more space for 'faith'...
imho, unchallenged, such a society wil only allow space for 'faith' in the private closet, not in the public square where life is conducted... ergo, the Agora :D
After mch thinking and research and serious investigation, I've become a staunch believer in Dan Brown now... Da Vinci IS a grandmaster of Priory of Sion and hid a secret code in the last supper painting... But the secret is much, much more DANGEROUS than anything Dan Brown could ever imagine! This is...The REAL Da Vinci Code.