Current System Configuration: Still sick >_< BGM: Brother in the Faith by JAM Project, SRW Alpha 3's ending theme. A mournful rock ballad that speaks of courage going on forever. A fitting end to the last game in SRW's Alpha saga.
Breakfast: Breadtalk's Cheese Floss bun.
Lunch: Breadtalk's HotChic spicy floss bun.
Dinner: Breadtalk's Earthquake Toast. Man, Breadtalk stuff is GOOD.
I'm sure most of my readers have read The Da Vinci Code. I have read it myself and enjoyed reading it. In fact, I couldn't put it down until I finished it at
However, there are a few things I have to make clear, and in this I align myself with most Christian authorities that are speaking out against the book. However, the burden of proof rests upon us because Dan Brown and his predecessors seem to have compiled quite a lot of important historical facts that are used to support the arguments presented in the book. Thus, it's not enough to just pull rank and say that because the Church is the authority, it should be believed. Since the guns of history were pulled out and pointed at us, it is best to present true historical facts that will show everyone that Dan Brown's guns are not even loaded.
But wait, isn't The Da Vinci Code only a work of fiction? We shouldn't believe it in the first place! At first I was convinced of that. But after seeing two Dan Brown interviews, he says that he was at first skeptical of the whole conspiracy theory and sought to disprove it with his book, but after three trips to
Now, I'm not saying he's an evil evil man and that his work sucks. I enjoyed reading his novels (I've read Da Vinci, and I've also read Angels and Demons, my favorite; Digital Fortress and Deception Point). Neither am I saying that the movie should be boycotted. That's just immature. If someone pulls logical-looking arguments against you, it's best if you counter them with your own.
Dan Brown raised quite a few points that Christians see as attacks:
-That Jesus was completely human, and not God at all, as portrayed in the Gnostic Gospels, so-called secret Gospels that were either excluded from Church canon or destroyed altogether.
-He was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered a bloodline that is still alive to this day, also in the Gnostic Gospels.
-The original teachings of Christ supported the "Sacred Feminine" and exalted women, as seen in the Gnostic Gospels.
-That Christianity as we know it is a cleverly engineered cover-up that was sanctioned by the Roman Emperor Constantine: important secret Gospels were destroyed and the four canonical Gospels were embellished by him.
-The Church continues to cover up these "facts" and lives in a lie in order to retain power.
Before I begin I do have to admit that some of these arguments will not stand in a formal debate with solid rules of logic. The logic I am appealing to is not the logic of debate, but the logic of common sense. This is about history and about recorded writings, not concepts that are obscure and must be defined by parties concerned. You can feel free to debate with me if you wish, but I think it's best that you take that up with the actual historians whose work this article is based on.
Jesus Was Not Believed to be God, and Christianity as we know it was made up by
“My dear,” Teabing declared, “until [the Council of
Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet ...
a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.
A mortal.”
Upon this premise alone, the Da Vinci Code falls flat. Jesus Himself said that He was God, and this is precisely the claim that got Him executed.
""Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
"I am," said Jesus.
"And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked.
"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"
They all condemned him as worthy of death."
---Mark 14: 61-64
Biblical scholars may disagree on many different things, but they will all agree that the Gospel of Mark dates back to 80 AD at latest, and that it is the earliest of the Gospels. This far predated the reign of Constantine (who Dan Brown says made up the four Gospels and threw his influence around at the Council of Nicea to further his own agendas). And to a Jew, Jesus's statement, "I am," is chillingly similar to God's forbidden name, YHWH. (YHWH is also referenced in DVC, this is discussed in detail later.) This is outright blasphemy to them, and was the basis for Jesus's execution. Disclaimer: Do NOT accuse me of anti-Semitism, because I have a deep respect for the Jews. I do not blame them for the death of Christ, because it was necessary in the first place, for the forgiveness of our sins. I pray for the Jews, respect them as God's chosen people and I wish to visit the
Several extra-Biblical, non-Christian authors also wrote about Christ, Christians and their practices:
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) has a rather nasty but accurate view of Christianity:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
This means Jesus was executed and His followers did claim that He was God. It's consistent with the view that most authorities during that time had toward Christianity: It was a nuisance based on superstition.
Pliny the Younger paints a better picture, though he is still a non-Biblical, non-Christian source of proof that Jesus had been worshipped as God ever since:
"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
In 180 AD, Irenaeus of Lyons declared in his text, Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), that there are only four canonical Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, each bearing the name of the man who wrote them.
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at
--Adversus Haereses III, 1:1
Matthew and John were both eyewitness accounts, while Mark's account was taken from Peter's experiences, Luke's was based on Paul's. If you watched National Geographic's Gospel of Judas documentary, you'll hear that Irenaeus's reasons for choosing only four gospels was quite arbitrary and illogical: There were four winds, four compass points, etc. The documentary, however, fails to mention that Irenaeus was no person far-removed from the eyewitness accounts of the Gospel. He was the disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John himself. He was around early enough to know whether the gospels were true or not. Upon seeing the Gnostic gospels, he dismissed them with good reason: They did not agree with the things he knew to be true about Jesus.
Both Tacitus and Pliny predated
...Teabing said. “Jesus’s establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of
“Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’s divinity was the result of a vote?”
“A relatively close vote at that,” Teabing added.
The Council of Nicaea was indeed convened by
And the "relatively close vote" part is completely bogus. Only two out of the 370 bishops present voted against the Nicene Creed---and only because there were other parts of the creed that they did not agree with.
It's settled: Jesus claimed to be God and was believed to be so by His followers as early as the Gospel times. The four canonical Gospels predated the Council of Nicaea by nearly two centuries, as opposed to the Da Vinci Code's claim of the canon being decided upon four centuries after Christ.
Christianity: 2, Dan Brown: 0.
More on Scripture:
“Fortunately for historians,” Teabing said, “some of the gospels that
clearly confirming that the modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda — to promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ and use His influence to solidify their own power base.”
Bra-vo. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not Christian writings. They were Jewish writings attributed to the apocalyptic Essene sect, dated to at least 200 years before Constantine, were found in 1947, and had nothing to do with Jesus other than that they contained Old Testament prophecies regarding Him, in the form of the Book of Isaiah. In fact, the Book of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls is almost exactly (around 95%) the same as the current Book of Isaiah found in the Old Testament today. If anything, it confirmed the accuracy of our modern translations. It did not throw any doubt on Jesus's divine nature at all.
The Nag Hammadi Codices contain the Gnostic Gospels, which are discussed in more detail later. Simply put, they were not even clear narratives of Jesus's ministry. The Gospel of Thomas was a set of "secret sayings" of Jesus, while neither of the other two Gospels truly portrays Jesus in a specifically human way. Furthermore, the Gnostics believed that the flesh was inherently evil. Why would they write about a Messiah who was merely human? In the separate but related (Gnostic) Gospel of Judas, Jesus tells Judas that he will be the greatest among the Apostles because he will be the one who "sacrifices the man that clothes [Jesus]." Yeah, that's pretty pro-human. It portrays Jesus as itching to get out of the sack of flesh and blood. In general, the Nag Hammadi Codices paint a Jesus who spouts obscure and uninterpretable pronouncements. For example:
Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human." --The Gospel of Thomas, Saying #7
Really, this sounds like what you'd hear on Bubble Gang's Ang Dating Doon. And people say the canonical Bible is hard to understand. Closing remarks on Jesus's divinity, care of one of my favorite authors, C.S. Lewis:
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us." --C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Jesus Was Married to Mary Magdalene
Dan Brown states that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, a prominent female figure in the canonical Gospel stories. He claims that the Church invented the lie that she was a prostitute in order to slander her and take away her credibility. Dan Brown also states that a bloodline was born of this union and persists today, hidden in some secret location in France.
Proof:
-Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper shows a very feminine person seated beside Christ, who according to popular belief is not John but Mary Magdalene. Their clothing is similarly colored, with Jesus in a red robe with a blue cloak, and "Mary" in a blue robe and red cloak.
At first glance, the person seated beside Jesus does look like a woman. The figure is the only beardless figure in the entire room (This is not actually true, as Philip is also depicted as beardless---he's the one standing two people away from Jesus on the right half of the painting with his hands to his chest), and the face is decidedly feminine. In fact, she's quite a hottie.
But what Dan Brown doesn't tell you is that the painting has been restored several times. The original paint has badly decayed and what Robert Langdon sees in the novel is the restored image. So what did "Mary" look like back then?
The figure in question has such a badly-smudged face that there is no way of telling it is indeed bearded or not. However, we don't even need to question the beardedness of the painting. It was (and still is) common to portray John as bare-faced as he is traditionally believed to be the youngest of the 12.
Last Supper by Jacopo Bassano
Last Supper by Valentin de Boulonge
Last Supper by Duccio di Bouninsegna
Last Supper by Andrea del Castagno
No prizes as to who John is in each painting. John and Judas are, apart from Jesus, the most easily recognizable figures in almost all Last Supper paintings. John is almost always beside Jesus, is beardless, and sleeping either on the table or leaning against Jesus. Judas, on the other hand, is either dark-featured, seated separately (as in del Castagno's--note also the eerie vision of wolves in the panel above his head) or holding a purse (as in Da Vinci's and Bassano's).
Now, let's look at another of Da Vinci's paintings---this time, of John the Baptist.
See, it is his style to draw young men with features that we would find feminine today. Ready for the deathblow? 覚悟！
Da Vinci's study of the Last Supper labels the person as John. No doubt about that, art critics universally agree that the person seated to Jesus's right is John. In the study, John is on Jesus's left and is alseep, as he is commonly depicted in Last Supper paintings. Da Vinci decided to go with a less traditional pose and instead portrayed him as sleepy. There is no one labeled Mary Magdalene in Da Vinci's study.
On a related note, regarding the "disembodied hand with the dagger":
The novel says that there is an extraneous arm with a dagger in its hand.
Sophie squinted and saw a hand emerging from the crowd of disciples. “Is that hand wielding a dagger?”
“Yes. Stranger still, if you count the arms, you’ll see that this hand belongs to ... no one at all. It’s disembodied. Anonymous.”
If you look closely at the painting, you'll see that while there is a hand that emerges at an odd angle from behind Judas, and cannot possibly belong to Peter, Judas or anyone in that immediate area. But if you continue looking at the painting, you'll see that it isn't even pointing at "Mary Magdalene", and that you can't really count the arms because not all of them are even shown. Now, why is it at an odd angle, emerging out of Judas's back?
Okay, while I'm a Fine Arts graduate, we didn't really take up symbolism in class. But anybody familiar with the Apostles and their epithets will tell you that Judas was known as "Iscariot"--"Man of Daggers." (Take note that this is only one reading of Judas's street name, it isn't the only way) One explanation for the dagger may be his betrayal, and that can be supported by John 13:27: After the piece of bread, then Satan entered into him. Then Jesus said to him, "What you do, do quickly." The dagger and the extra hand can be symbolic of Satan's entering into Judas, the presence of another malevolent will in the room.
A simpler (and more likely) explanation can be that the hand belongs to Peter in the first place, and that Da Vinci messed it up, as seen in this article. It goes on to say that Da Vinci did write in his notes that this implement was a knife (tableware) as opposed to a dagger (a murder weapon). Furthermore, Peter is sometimes shown holding a knife, symbolic of his attack of the high priest's servant Malchus. (John 18:10). See the above Last Supper by Jacopo Bassano to see what I mean: Peter is clearly threatening the sleeping John with a sharp knife. :P I kid, of course. Among the Apostles, Peter is depicted as a hothead who acts on impulse, which eventually culminated at his denial of Christ. In his anger he lashed out and cut off the high priest's servant's ear in Gethsemane, an attempt to defend Christ during His arrest.
Simply enough, this "disembodied hand" is not symbolic of any attempt to attack "Mary Magdalene," who is actually John anyway.
-The passages in Gnostic Gospels about Jesus kissing Mary Magdalene.
What Dan Brown has you believe is that according to viciously suppressed writings, Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. The cited work in the novel is The Gospel of Philip, which is a part of the Nag Hammadi Library, a set of writings that was found in Egypt. These writings are attributed to the Gnostics, a sect of Christians who were deemed heretical as they believed the flesh was evil and that everyone had the ability to become a god or like God through special knowledge (Gnosis). More on them here.
The Nag Hammadi codices are damaged, highly fragmented writings that are dated to 150-250 AD, a long time after the four canonical Gospels were written (60-100 AD) let alone the earliest New Testament writings: Paul's epistles, written circa 50 AD.
The Gospel of Philip is translated from a badly damaged manuscript and contains two passages that hint at Jesus's supposed marriage:
"There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary."
Dan Brown says, through Leigh Teabing:
"As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse."
What Teabing doesn't tell you is that the Gnostic Gospels were written in Coptic, a variant of Greek, rather than Aramaic, a variant of Hebrew. The word used is koinonos, which just means companion. The Greek word for wife is gyne. Off the bat, it seems Dan Brown didn't really do his research very well.
Let's look at another passage from the Gospel of Philip.
And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] more than [...] the disciples, [...] kiss her [...] on her [...]. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.
Each of the brackets with ellipses indicates a hole in the original text, or a part that's so damaged it's illegible. The missing words can be guessed through context, but a common translation of "kiss her [...] on her [...]." has the first hole as "often" and the latter hole as "mouth." Wow, that's something to put into your gossip column. If a pastor or priest kissed a woman now, it would definitely be seen as a scandal. In OUR cultural context. In Jesus's time, even men kissed each other and it was not seen as taboo. In using this passage to prove Jesus's marriage, we are applying our cultural norms to an event that happened 2000 years ago, in a completely different culture and environment. Furthermore, the Greek word for mouth (stouma) can also be interchangeably used to refer to the word "face."
From these few passages, we cannot conclude that Jesus was married. Teabing claims that there are "countless references to Jesus and Mary Magdalene's union." This is an outright exaggeration: There were only two references in all the Gnostic gospels, and they were not even conclusive.
I have more arguments against this conspiracy theory, but I'll leave them out for now as I still have a lot of ground to cover. To close this section: Why is Jesus being married so bad?
The simple answer? There is absolutely nothing wrong about Jesus being married or performing the sexual act in marriage. Marriage and proper use of sexuality are both creations of God, and as such, had Jesus been married, he would have shown us the perfect example of marriage. The problem arises in Jesus actually having children. Since Jesus is fully man and fully God, while his supposed wife is fully human, what would the nature of the children be? This would result in a cataclysmic and endless debate about the nature of these people. (Maier,88)
Another claim of Dan Brown is that Christianity was engineered and edited into a patriarchal, anti-female army that demonized the ancient, matriarchal pagan religion.
He claims that Christ was "...the original feminist. He intended for the future of His church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene..."
I have no doubt that Jesus was the original feminist. He associated with women a lot during a time that they were deemed untrustworthy.
-He defended the woman caught in adultery (who the Scriptures never, ever name as Mary Magdalene)
-He talked with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well, who was not only a despicable outsider to the Jews, she was also an adulteress
-The person Jesus cited for great charity in tithing was a poor widow. If women had bad social standing in ancient Palestine, widows had it even worse. Jesus broke this trend.
-It was the women who stuck close to Him while He was on the way to Golgotha. Only John appeared later on at the crucifixion site.
-He first appeared to Mary Magdalene after His resurrection
-It was the women He first asked to tell the men of His resurrection.
In fact, the New Testament portrays a significant number of women in a positive light, and holding a very important position in the group that followed Jesus: (Taken from Wikipedia)
- Tabitha/Dorcas - Acts 9:36
- Priscilla - Romans 16:3
- sisters Mary and Martha - Luke 10:38
- Jesus' mother Mary
- Mary Magdalene - Mark 16:1
- Salome - Mark 16:1
- A woman with an issue of blood - Matthew 10:20
- Mary, the mother of James and Joses - Matthew 27:55-56
- The mother of Zebedee's sons - Matthew 27:55-56
This also does not include Eunice and Lois, the mother and grandmother of Timothy (Paul's young disciple), respectively, who were noted for being righteous. (2 Timothy 1:5)
Contrast this with the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, which is more of a set of "Secret Sayings of Jesus" than a narrative of Christ's life.
(114) Simon Peter said to them, "Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "See, I am going to attract her to make her male so that she too might become a living spirit that resembles you males. For every female (element) that makes itself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
Even though this does not refer to an actual sex change, the author of this gospel uses the word "male" to refer to higher, spiritual things and "female" to refer to lower, earthly things. I don't think it takes much to decide which text is more favorable toward women.
The Jewish tetragrammaton YHWH--the sacred name of God--is in fact derived from the "Jehovah," an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic word for Eve, Havvah. (The Da Vinci Code, page 390)
Bzzzzt. Wrong. YHWH is based on the Hebrew word for "To be", and is best described as meaning "I AM WHO I AM," God's resounding declaration in the Old Testament to Moses. (It stands for God's total self-sufficiency, existing in and of Himself without being created. It also refers to His eternal nature.) Jews were forbidden to say this name, so the word "Adonai" (Lord) was often used in its place. Eventually, rabbis pronounced this sacred name with the vowel sounds from "Adonai," resulting in "Jehovah." This only happened in the 16th century and did not predate YHWH. (Maier, 88)
I'm running out of space, and I've been tapping and clicking at my computer for almost eight hours writing this. I've gone through one and a half pots of tea, consumed a rather large amount of bread, and have been juggling resource websites, a PDF of the Da Vinci Code, a critique, pages of notes, the Bible, and Yahoo Messenger windows all afternoon. But given the glaring amount of discrepancies the DVC has with historical fact, I think I can rest my case. It sure is an entertaining read (I don't even think it's well-written, as Sophie is more of a bobbing-head damsel in distress than the sacred feminine that the book claims to support), but I can definitely, conclusively say that the conspiracy theories therein are complete, utter nonsense. I am not saying that Christianity has not had its own share of grievous errors. The Crusades; the Inquisition; several, very wicked popes; false televangelists who extort followers for profit; sex and molestation scandals; oh, the list goes on. There is no excuse for those atrocities. However, the much-regretted and apologized-for actions of a few men should not supercede the loving, righteous actions of many, many more men and women.
The catholic Church (I'm using catholic here in what it means: Universal, meaning all true believers in Christ, not just Roman Catholics, not just Orthodox, not just Protestant---EVERYONE) has been under attack ever since it began. She was oppressed by a world power, the
"We are hard-pressed on every side, but not crushed; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed." ---Paul, 2 Corinthians 4:8
"In this world, you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." ---Jesus, John 16:33
Resources:
-The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
-The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction? by Hank Hanergraaff and Paul L. Maier
-The Bible, New International Version
-Unlocking the Da Vinci Code (Seminar) by Randy Gleason
-Adversus Haereses by Irenaeus
-The Gospel of Philip
-The Gospel of Thomas
-Wikipedia (links to specific articles above)
-What about the Disembodied Hand?
-Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
13 comments:
Hello Aslan Cross,
Greetings from a true "Black Lion."
There's a bit more to the story of the Vatican's reaction than most are yet aware of. Read my missive below to understand what they truly fear. It's not the DaVinci Code or Gospel of Judas per se, but the fact that people have been motivated to seek out the unequivocal truth about an age of deception, exactly when they expect me to appear. The Gospel of Judas and DaVinci Code controversies are allowing people to take new stock of the Vatican and the religions it has spawned. Seek to understand the symbolic significance of my name (Seven Star Hand) and you will have proof beyond disproof that Christians have long been duped by the great deceivers I warned humanity about over the millennia.
Remember, "I come as a thief..."
It is quite a joke that the Vatican and Catholic Church have the gall to accuse the author of a novel of attacking their fantasies and dogma. Remember that this is the same organization that manufactured fake relics and miracles for many centuries. This is the same group that massacred and tortured people for having a mind of their own. This is the same group of deluded deceivers that makes more noise about a fictional book and movie than about child raping priests, aids, famine, or even the Holocaust! Here's more about my take on it.
Is the world ready for unequivocal Truth and verifiable Wisdom yet?
Please be forewarned that what I reveal will upset a lot of apple carts and shake a lot of trees, hence the true meaning of the word Apocalypse. Please don't take what I say or do as a personal affront. Be a little patient and read my articles. My purpose is to prove that the truth has long been hidden in various ways. Humanity has been lied to and deluded by religious, monetary, and political leaders long enough. My aim is to reveal the truth and deliver verifiable wisdom. To do so, I must rattle a lot of cages to wake people out of their ages-old nightmares. Unlike the Vatican and its cohorts, I come with proof beyond disproof of many things. If you want to be amazed and enlightened, resist the urge to scoff at unfamiliar knowledge and seek to understand the stunning and comprehensive proof I have produced.
What does "making the blind see" symbolize? What does "closing one's eyes and ears to truth and wisdom" or "turning a blind eye and deaf ear" infer? Perhaps many more people are now ready to "open their eyes to the truth!" Now Christians (and others) can gain the wisdom to walk away from the folly of religion and seek to understand the truth about the Creator and Her Messiah (me). Now everyone can open their seven eyes to see the ancient wisdom long recast and obfuscated by religion and mysticism and turn their faces to the perfect path. (this is symbolism decoded in my books...)
Are you familiar with the "Seven Spirits of God," the "Seven Golden Candlesticks," "Wisdom's Seven Pillars" in Proverbs 9:1, and their relationship to the Community Rule in the Dead Sea Scrolls and DSS 11Q13? Study the Doctrine of Two Spirits on my web page and on the front cover of my book. I have produced some earth shattering breakthroughs in this area that will end the lies of religion, forever.
The Vatican is proving that seeking the truth is a real threat to their dogma. They're so afraid of people uncovering the truth, that they are attacking other versions of fantasy (DaVinci Code) and blatantly obvious Gnostic symbolism as threats to their long-term smoke and mirrors, hocus-pocus, and mumbo-jumbo. How thoroughly enlightening, since this goes a very long way to proving that Christianity is based on strong lies and delusions. If it weren’t, they would be confident of surviving intense scrutiny. Since they aren't and since they have gone to such great lengths to suppress and oppress those seeking truth and wisdom over the centuries, their deceptions are, once again, laid bare for all to see. This time though, they are the ones to walk into a well-laid trap...
Did you ever stop to think what the True Messiah (me) would say about worshipping false names, false images, and dogma? Well, now you get the chance to hear my side of the story and weigh it against the strong delusion of faith and religion. None of the European names and images in the New Testament can possibly be the truth. It’s beyond obvious that the New Testament is not complete or even accurate history.
Likewise, the following Washington Post article demonstrates how many changes and embellishments were made to these texts over the centuries, unequivocally demonstrating they are not original, infallible, or truthful. What then is the purpose of "faith" but to keep good people from seeking to understand truth and wisdom?
The Book of Bart
Visit my web site to understand what they are truly afraid of. The Vatican and world leaders have struggled to keep people from understanding the truth and religion is a key tool in their smokescreen. Now, when I appear on the scene, everyone is seeking to understand their ages-old deceptions, and I have produced stunning and comprehensive proof. The time has come for the "earth to quake" and the liars to "gnaw their tongues for pain." (This is symbolism decoded in the book...)
The time has come for the Vatican and world leaders to learn the truth about Karma...
If you truly want to understand the symbology, ancient wisdom, and ancient history that neither the DaVinci Code nor Christianity have portrayed accurately or fully, then read my articles and download my FREE E-Book. I am not trying to make money from book sales, quite the opposite in fact. There are many centuries of deception that need to be exposed and it takes a fully researched tome to succeed at such a daunting task. I am providing years of difficult research and reconstruction, without income or profit. Please accept this in the spirit intended. It is not commercial spam, deception, or an attempt to delude. I make no money from the E-book or the paperback, which is sold at cost as a convenience. As mentioned earlier, study the Doctrine of Two Spirits on my web page to understand the long-obscured truth about my philosophy and purposes.
Not only do I talk the talk, I walk the walk...
Here is Wisdom!!
I'm sorry, but this apparently "false" faith that I have been believing in for the past eight years is more than just some obscure and hazy doctrine. It is more than just a concept that I hold onto. It has changed my life and the life of countless other people whom I know personally. I did not learn it in a doctrine class or from a self-proclaimed authority. I experienced and continue to experience it myself, and I have seen it transform my family, a family on the verge of collapse. It taught me how to love and truly live.
I know of a lot of people who cobble together "designer faiths" by taking parts from other religions and putting them together to come up with something that looks new simply because it is butchered beyond recognition.
I do not even need to argue against this, but so that you might not continue deceiving yourself:
Friend, if the God truly wanted to save mankind, He would let the truth be easily available (and it is.) He would not hide its meaning in esoteric symbols that not everyone could understand.
Quote: "None of the European names and images in the New Testament can possibly be the truth. It’s beyond obvious that the New Testament is not complete or even accurate history."
Again, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. There is more historical evidence for the truth, or at least the historical accuracy, of the New Testament than even Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars or Homer's Illiad. And the reason why the names sound so European is because many Europeans are named after those people in the first place! The original text was not in English, it was in Greek, historically proven to be the language spoken in that region during that period. Non-Christian writers such as Tacitus and Pliny also confirmed the existence of Christianity as we know it during those times.
"He said, "Watch out that you don't get led astray, for many will come in my name, saying,' I am he,' and,'The time is at hand.' Therefore don't follow them." --Luke 21:8
I'm sorry, but even non-Christian historians will agree that this statement predates you by at least 1940 years. The warning of my Lord stands. I will not believe in you, and I certainly pray that you would stop believing in the lie that you tell yourself.
whoaaaaa... sir, you should submit this... it's really nicely written and well researched. *eyes all swirly from lengthy reading*
i dunno, i'm totally neutral about the thing... the way i see it, as long as my faith remains strong, even after reading or hearing about things like this, my faith is safe... i guess books and stuff like these are one of the trials our faith has to face.
faith, after all, is not belief without proof, but trust without reserve. (where did i get this??)
see you soon! mucho miss you! :)
- anna -
Anya and Katja, thanks for your support. Most of the stuff I posted is just stuff I learned from someone else, I didn't really do the research myself.
I posted this because I felt that there needs to be some clarity on the matter and that some people aren't really sure about where they stand. I am definitely not for banning the movie just because "it's blasphemous" (from what I've heard, it was mellowed down significantly). I see this as an opportunity to show people what the truth really is.
There is nothing wrong with questioning one's faith as long as the questioning intends to clarify and not to undermine. I just think that if there's a significant challenge, it has to be shown for what it is.
It's too bad you can't go see the movie, it being R-18 and all. XP I plan on going to see it sometime next week.
Oh, and I really don't know who Seven Star Hand is. D: The post just appeared there all of a sudden. Kinda caught me off guard.
agreed! good job!
we say that jesus is both completely human and completely divine. so if he did have a wife,it would only be proof of his humanity-- not proof against his divinity.
pesonally, if it were true, i think it would make it all the more easier to relate with jesus. It would show the world just how human he really was, just how much he immersed himself in this world of ours, and just how much we have in common with him. that we, too, can be like him. :)
yun lang!
Stunning story there. What happened after? Thanks!
Here is my blog - history of life insurance policy
Hey! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any trouble with hackers?
My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing several weeks of hard work due to no data
backup. Do you have any solutions to prevent hackers?
My webpage :: catalunyagai.com
Excellent post. I was checking constantly this weblog and I'm impressed! Extremely helpful info specifically the last part :) I handle such information a lot. I was looking for this certain info for a very lengthy time. Thank you and best of luck.
Also see my web page: plumbing repairs
Thanks for finally writing about > "Code of Errors" < Loved it!
Also visit my webpage :: shopping comparison
Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite justification seemed to be on
the internet the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely
get annoyed while people consider worries that they just
do not know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing
without having side-effects , people could take a signal.
Will likely be back to get more. Thanks
Feel free to visit my web site http://widyawisatabanten.com
Wow! Finally I got a blog from where I be able to in fact take useful data regarding my study and
knowledge.
Feel free to surf to my web page: rupgermany.bplaced.net
This post will help the internet users for setting up new web site or even
a weblog from start to end.
Check out my webpage; http://chicago.getofftheinternet.net/user.php?login=qtaeugeni&
I blog often and I genuinely thank you for your information.
This great article has really peaked my interest. I'm going to bookmark your site and keep checking for new information about once a week. I opted in for your RSS feed as well.
my webpage Learn Even more
Post a Comment