[PAmedic]

this actually came out while I was away so I missed it:

http://newsadvance.com/servlet/Satellit ... lifestyles

Falwell not a fan of 'Code'

By Ron Brown
rbrown@newsadvance.com
May 20, 2006



The Rev. Jerry Falwell said the book and movie, “The Da Vinci Code,” blasphemes Jesus Christ and does a disservice to those seeking salvation.

“The Da Vinci Code is not dangerous to earnest believers, who know what they believe and why they believe it,” he said. “It is very dangerous to what I call seekers: People who are not yet committed to Christ, who are thinking about becoming Christians and who read the book or watch the movie and have their faith literally shattered.”

Falwell said the credibility of Dan Brown’s novel falls apart on four separate fronts.

The book challenges Christ’s claim to be the son of God, thus invalidating the core message of the Bible’s New Testament.

“If Christ is not God, then Christianity is non-existent,” Falwell said.

Secondly, the book and movie implies Christ might have had a marital relationship with Mary Magdalene and fathered a child.

“When you question the integrity and morality of Christ, you take it a level beyond questioning his deity,” Falwell said.

The movie also suggests that Mary Magdalene might have been God herself.

The historical record or the Bible supports none of the book’s and movie’s core claims, Falwell said.

“The idea is promoted in the book and the movie that the Church of Jesus Christ, particularly the Catholic Church, has been involved in a 2,000-year-old cover up,” he said.

Falwell said that Brown, the book’s author, may have an ax to grind with the Catholic Church.

“I don’t know if there is politics involved or not,” he said. “It is certainly an attack on the Catholic Church and there are those people who are perennially attacking the Catholic Church. I do know that, for people like Dan Brown, it is their way of retaliating against people of faith and the church itself, and indirectly against God.

“Dan Brown is a disenfranchised and grumbly former churchman. I have no problem understanding why he is bitter and why he would do a frontal attack on Jesus Christ and his church.”

But Falwell said he is “very disappointed” with Ron Howard, the director of the movie that opened Friday nationwide.

“I’m very disappointed in Ron Howard,” he said. “I’ve always looked on him as Opie in Mayberry - as most Americans have - believing him to be a very fine and wholesome young man.

“This is not doing a movie that may be a little salacious as far as sex or violence are concerned. This goes a quantum leap past that to literal blasphemy against the Son of God himself.”

[ATrain]

I'll admit it...I saw the movie the day it came out, with two other LU people. Just look at it as a work of fiction...and the movie deviates from the book in a few noticeable areas. I doubt I'll see it again though, but if I'm bored and want to go to the dollar theater and its there...I might. And Brokeback, if you're a fan of albinos, I highly recommend this movie.

[SuperJon]

I REALLY wanna see this.

[Brokeback Flamer]

NOt a huge albino fan, but liked the movie. Key word is it is FICTION. Other "blasphemous" movies, i.e. Last Temptation of Christ (Willem Dafoe DID play a great Jesus however) preported to be fact, this does not. OF COURSE Dan Brown is going to hem and haw around the issue, it is what sells books!!! I liked it, but not the best movie I have seen this summer. I think I am one of only 3 people who liked Poseidon

[LUconn]

I want to see it, but I don't really want to contribute money to it. So I'll wait for it on DVD to get it with my movie pass.

Now that I look like Super Christian, that's what I do with every movie.

[Sly Fox]

Actually Dan Brown is stating everywhere that the premise behind the book (the Jesus/Mary Magdelene marriage and descendants) is true. The action thriller aspect was just a way to deliver his "message".

I'll eventually see this one when they get it at the library where I don't have to spend a dime on it. But to be well informed we can't just stick our heads in the sand.

[SuperJon]

My question is would it change anything if Jesus was indeed married? Is it that big of a deal? Would anyone really care? Would it draw more people to or push more people away from Him?



My answer to all of those is no.

[Libertine]

Frankly, I don't think it matters theologically one way or the other if Jesus was married. The problem is that the Bible states unequivocally that Jesus was not married. In my mind, it's not a challenge to the deity of Christ himself but a challenge to the fallibility of Scripture.

[Sly Fox]

The core issue is the literal death, burial & resurrection of Christ. But again, we are dealing with the inerrancy of Scripture. There is no room for error.

[SuperJon]

The problem is that the Bible states unequivocally that Jesus was not married.

Where?

[Brokeback Flamer]

SLY that is my point. He IS saying those things, now, but if you look back when the book (and Angels and Demons) was released he was a little less gung ho about it. I mean from a PR stand point it is a no brainer. If he says, "Nah, its all fake" it wouldn't garner 1/10th the interest that it does now because he says "There are points that are raised that should be looked at". I have not seen anything where he says "Yes Jesus was married to MM etc and my book is the proof".
As for Jesus being married, not sure I really care as it would have no effect on the whole sinless, raising from the dead thing which is A LOT more important in theology! Notice, the movie doesn't say he was never crucified etc. just that he was married and had kids.

[LUconn]

Well it would somewhat conflict with his marraige with the church.

[Brokeback Flamer]

Well it would somewhat conflict with his marraige with the church.

Not if you are mormon!! And wouldn't you say that is sort of metaphorical our will we all be raptured/taken into glory in wedding attire?

[LUconn]

Well, if he's already married than that's a terrible metaphore.

[Brokeback Flamer]

Well, if he's already married than that's a terrible metaphore.

ORRRRR a tremendous metaphor. Because he would then know what marriage is from "first hand" experience. He knew that his audience knew what it was like to be married and knew HE knew what it was like. That would make for a very GOOD analogy actually. IF as a speaker you make a point that can draw you and your audience to a similar reference point then it makes for a powerful point

[LUconn]

But historically and biblically, marraige is a pretty significant thing. Don't you think it would have been mentioned by one of the 4 accounts of his life we have and all of the writings afterwards? (don't give me the cover up junk either)

[LUconn]

In thinking about this I decided to see what Dobson had to say about it. I normally trust him more than any other conservative mind:

A friend of mine who has read The Da Vinci Code asked, "Why would it matter if Jesus had been married?" Since our faith is the most important thing, would it really have mattered?

Answer: It is important to remember that our views about Jesus should not be in conflict with what the Bible clearly teaches about Him. Any one is free to believe anything, but we must ask, “What is your authority? What basis do you have for your conclusion?”

Dan Brown has written that Jesus was married and the Bible has been corrupted. But scholars from numerous Christian backgrounds have responded by pointing out, “The evidence shows otherwise.” In the Bible (a book shown to be trustworthy by many compelling lines of evidence), we find that Jesus’ mission was not procreation, but salvation. Establishment of marriage, family and an earthly home were not Jesus’ purposes.

Galatians 4:4 (NIV) tells us why Jesus was born: "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law." Why should we believe an assumption about Jesus that is non-biblical and without any evidence? In reality, Jesus didn’t need Mary Magdalene, because He already has a bride. The New Testament book of Romans (chapter 7) states that believers are espoused, engaged to be "married" to Jesus. Saved, forgiven, redeemed believers from all of history make up Jesus’ perfect "bride," not a fallen human. As far “faith” being the most important thing — remember that one's beliefs should be shaped in light of God’s revelation, not man’s speculation.

[TallyW]

That has to be the most rediculous argument I've ever heard from anyone on this issue. I'm frankly surprised it was even put forward on this board as if it held any logic. There are holes all over the place.

One major problem I have is here:
"In reality, Jesus didn’t need Mary Magdalene, because He already has a bride. The New Testament book of Romans (chapter 7) states that believers are espoused, engaged to be "married" to Jesus. Saved, forgiven, redeemed believers from all of history make up Jesus’ perfect "bride," not a fallen human. As far “faith” being the most important thing — remember that one's beliefs should be shaped in light of God’s revelation, not man’s speculation."



If Dobson seriously believes that the church is Jesus bride in the same way that I have a bride and therefore eliminates him from marrying "again" something is wrong. The reason is simple... WE ARE HIS BRIDE AND MOST OF US ARE MARRIED! So are we commiting adultry Mr. Dobson? This is nonsense. One argument I already hear is "there is not earthly marriage in heaven"... fine... then that means Jesus could have been married and it would cause our faith no harm because HIS earthly marriage wouldn't go with him to Heaven either. The other problem is that Dobson makes Christ's marriage to the 'church' a present and active marriage at the time of his life leading up to his death. I find this to be faulty as he doesn't marry his bride until he's resurrected. This seems like a stretch to me.

Let me be clear... I SEE NO EVIDENCE FOR JESUS HAVING A BRIDE SO THEREFORE I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID... HOWEVER... My faith doesn't change one bit if he did have a bride. Marriage isn't a sin. Sex inside of that marriage is not a sin and having children is not a sin. THEREFORE... he completely keeps his perfection and is a suitable sacrifice. In addition I'm still unsure how this affects the bible's authority as there are MANY arguments made from silence. To my knowledge the bible doesn't say that Jesus lived a single life. It does say that Paul did by choice but it's silent on Christ. Again... I don't believe he had a bride because I see no evidence of it and I trust the bible as my sole authority on this.... but I certainly think it's foolish to argue the way Mr. Dobson and thereby LUConn have argued here. This type of argument makes an unbelieving world even more skeptical. Either argue something that holds the other side captive or keep your mouth shut on the issue. These half-baked arguments make Christians look stupid and ill-informed.

By the way I love how the article makes it clear that it was a "Friend" of Dr. Dobson who had read the book. The argument from absense here is that Dr. Dobson himself didn't read the book. Are we to infer his motive? Is it because he already has a book he reads -the bible- and he doesn't cheat on his bible by reading anything else...or is it because he's protesting? Hmmmm

[LUconn]

This type of argument makes an unbelieving world even more skeptical. Either argue something that holds the other side captive or keep your mouth shut on the issue. These half-baked arguments make Christians look stupid and ill-informed.

Well this is beside the topic, but I beg to differ on this front. From my experience with the unbelieving (I do have a lot of experience since I knew only a handful of saved people before I attended LU), it is aarogant know-it all/argue everything folks like yourself that turn most people off to our faith. I posted a quote from a well respected man of god on the issue and you come on here and basically tell me I'm doing a disservice to Christians. All of my religion classes were filled with kids with similar attitudes. To steal a quote from Stephen A Smith, "Quite Frankly" you are what I don't miss about Liberty. At least learn some freaking tact.

[Libertine]

The problem is that the Bible states unequivocally that Jesus was not married.

Where?

I stand corrected, SJ. I thought it was in I Corinthians where Paul is talking about marriage but my NKJV is either missing a page, it's not where I thought it was or it's not there at all. If someone else can find it, thanks for making my point. If it's not there, well then Dan Brown has sidestepped sacrilege, merely taking creative license with Scripture (I can name a few others who've done that) and I still couldn't care less.

[SuperJon]

I did a speech on this in my public speaking class (not at LU) so I've done some research on it. Most of you guys know more than I do though.

[TallyW]

LUConn... Go back and re-read what you posted about me.

I'm not the one who is an 'arrogant know it all'. My entire post is about how I don't believe we have conclusive answers on this topic and nor do I think it violates our faith. Your post on the other hand takes Dr. Dobson at his word without thinking 2 layers deep for yourself. Just because you think and are able to string thoughts together doesn't mean you are 'arrogant' or a 'know it all'. By the way, it' also bad logic to call names instead of giving a counter argument. Know what you believe and why...

[LUconn]

no, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. We believe the same thing! I don't know if it's the debate school mentality or what, but there was always 2 or 3 guys in your classes that would argue to death for the sake of argument. You said it was foolish of me to think like that, when it seems to me, it's pretty darn logical for me to think that based on those reasons. You're talking down to me (and Dobson I suppose) and that's what makes you arogant.

As for my opinion on the matter, I don't see how Jesus could have married. I haven't done any research or anything but it just seems like that would take away from his diety. Again, I've got nothign to back that up but my opinion. What would be the point? Did Jesus need companionship? Did Jesus do anything with his time on this earth to fulfill any of his own desires or was everything he did with one goal in mind? How would anybody be worthy enough to "become one" with the son of God? These are the questions that I don't know the answer to. I don't know if they even have answers.

[Brokeback Flamer]

NKJV - Enough said!! Perhaps the poorest of the modern popular translations. For a good translation try to scare up a RSV (not the NRSV, that is not helpful either when trying to find things) But this is not the place to get into a translation debate LOL

[TallyW]

LUConn... do you understand why I even said anything to begin with. It's obvious we ultimately share a similar belief concerning the end product but we obviously have vastly different views of what is acceptable for Christians to put out as reasoning. You just admitted that you have nothing but an opinion and a quote from Dobson that makes no sense. That is a problem in my book. Christians should have an understanding about issues concerning the salvation of the world. Since when did debate become something to look down on? Of all places on the planet where open debate is encouraged this board is at the top of the list and to think that this forum gets so little discussion among the hundred or so Christians is kinda sad. So LUConn's message is that debate about the floor color of the Vines Center is good while debate about of the life of our Savior is somehow arrogant and bad? Crazy.

Apparently you're okay with Christians throwing out rediculous rhetoric in place of logical discussion... I'm not.



Brokeback... I use NIV for the most part