Home PEx Family and Society Realm of Thought

Constantine the Great and the Da Vinci Code: what is fact and what is fiction?

pollywogpollywog PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion-Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among them.. The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great….He was a lifelong pagan who was baptized on his deathbed, too weak to protest. Constantine was a very good businessman. He could see that Christianity was on the rise, and he simply backed the winning horse. Historians still marvel at the brilliance with which Constantine converted the sun-worshipping pagans to Christianity. By fusing pagan symbols, dates and rituals into growing Christian tradition, he created a king of hybrid religion that was acceptable to both parties. The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable. Egyptian sun disks became the halos of Catholic saints. Pictograms of Isis nursing her miraculously conceived son Horus became the blueprint for our modern images of the Virgin Mary nursing Baby Jesus. And virtually all the elements of the act of “God-eating”-were taken directly from earlier pagan mystery religions. Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian God Mithras-called ‘the son of God and the Light of the World’-was born on Dec.25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. Dec.25 is also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
During this fusion of religions, Constantine needed to strengthen the new Christian tradition, and held famous ecumenical gathering known as the Council of Nicaea. Many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon-the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and of course, the divinity of Jesus….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. Jesus’ establishment as the ‘Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted upon on by the Council of Nicaea. 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. It was all about power, Christ as messiah was critical to the functioning of Church and state. Many scholars claim that the early Church literally ‘stole’ Jesus from His original followers, hijacking His human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand their own power. Nobody is saying Christ was a fraud., or denying that He walked the earth and inspired millions to better lives. It’s just that Constantine took advantage of Christ’s substantial influence and importance. And in doing so, he shaped the face of Christianity as we know it today. Because Constantine upgraded Jesus’ status almost four centuries after Jesus’ death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a ‘mortal’ man. To rewrite history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. From this sprang the most profound moment in Christian history. Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned. Anyone who chose the forbidden gospels over Constantine’s version was deemed heretic. Fortunately for historians, some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judaean desert. And, of course, the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. These documents speak of Christ’s ministry in very human terms. Of course, the Vatican, in keeping with their tradition of misinfornations, tried very hard to suppress the release of these scrolls. And why wouldn’t they? The scrolls highlight glaring historical discrepancies and fabrications, 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. It is important to remember that the modern Church’s desire to suppress these documents comes from a sincere belief in their established view of Christ. The Vatican is made up of deeply pious men who truly believe these contrary documents could only be false testimony. That’s understandable. Constantine’s Bible has been their truth for ages. Nobody is more indoctrinated than the indoctrinator….

Comments? Violent reactions?
«1345

Comments

  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    aaahhhh! eye strain!!!
  • omengomeng PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    ha ha :)
  • where did you get that information?

    and also, an attack on the canon of the bible is an attack on the whole of Christianity as well, to single out Vatican and its suppression of the other books (when in fact the Vatican has more books in its bible) looks like anti-catholic propaganda to me :D

    scratch that..did a search on the net and it seems that you have been reading a lot of Dan Brown lately Pollywog :)

    there are a lot of Christian websites that have already listed the errors of the Da Vinci code.
  • pollywogpollywog PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Yup yup yup! Dan Brown is my current favorite! he he he...
    "there are a lot of Christian websites that have already listed the errors of the Da Vinci code."
    --of course! what do you expect, praise the book?! Baka nga sunugin pa nila yun e. Harry Potter nga sinusunog nila e Da Vinvi Code pa kaya...
  • i must say that Angels and Demons was a great book. I couldnt put it down. :) Cant wait to get my hands on the Da Vinci code, although its fiction, it should still be a great read.
  • pollywogpollywog PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    ...It's not entirely fiction. It's a fictional story within a historical context.
  • ...as long as you know what the fact is from the fiction... ;)
  • pollywogpollywog PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    With Angels & Demons, yung story lang ng Illuminati ang hindi totoo. Pero yung iba totoo: anti-matter, the Illuminati path, Il Pasetto, Conclaves even the X-33...all of them exists.
  • Originally posted by pollywog
    With Angels & Demons, yung story lang ng Illuminati ang hindi totoo. Pero yung iba totoo: anti-matter, the Illuminati path, Il Pasetto, Conclaves even the X-33...all of them exists.

    anti-matter is only a theory, just like black holes. it's more reasonable to say that they do exist, but only because the theories are so popular even outside scientific circles. :)

    as for that eye-jerking article, all i see are a lot of cross-religious references without a shred of proof that Constantine is, in fact, the great orchastrator of Catholicism, beyond a fanciful theory.

    there are quite a number of surviving texts that can easily disprove many of the things written there. i don't know if Mr. Brown has heard of them, much lesss read them; chances are he hasn't, otherwise he wouldn't have written what he did.
  • pollywogpollywog PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    About anti-matter: it cannot be far behind, 20 years nang ginagamit ng CERN yung antiparticle. With the antiproton decelerator now operational, pwede nang gumawa ng antihydrogen and antimatter eventually.
    http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/

    'History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated and the winner writes the history books-books which glorifies their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, "What is history, but a fable agreed upon?"'

    Makes sense...
  • Originally posted by pollywog
    'History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated and the winner writes the history books-books which glorifies their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, "What is history, but a fable agreed upon?"'

    Makes sense...

    in other words, whatever textual evidence i present is biased because they're Church docments, right?

    but that is only valid if we presume that the Church is untrustworthy and maliciously deceptive, which is incidentally what Dan Brown presumes. what is the basis for this presumption, pray tell?
  • pahabol: when i said that there is textual evidence to disprove Mr. Brown's statements (if indeed they were meant to be factual), i meant that some of the supposed "decisions" of Constantine were decided well before the great monarch was ever involved with Christianity. :)
  • mac_bolan00mac_bolan00 PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    i don't believe konstantin was ever that involved in christian doctrine. put yourself in his shoes and then recall the harry potter series:

    harry/constantine was the favored successor of the western caesar diocletian/dumbledore.

    with the death of diocletian, harry had to wrest the western part of the empire from another pretender, severus/snape.

    having taken the west, he now had to battle the lord of the eastern half of the empire/voldemort

    finally, after a couple more battles, harry/constantine re-unified the empire and settled in the old eastern lord's bastion of byzantium.

    constantine was a caesar (meaning a conquering general). he became an augustus caesar (emperor) only after defeating all his foes.

    it's like telling macarthur or the duke of wellington to re-write the OT/NT. not likely.
  • pollywogpollywog PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    My point is, no one really knows what ACTUALLY happened;... just another idea. It's really faith that counts what you believe in...
    Get an american and a japanese, ask them both to write an essay about WWII. 100% magkaiba ang version nila.
  • QuentinQuentin PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    so all of this is moot?
  • rickymrickym PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    if all these theories are false why doesn't the church just sue? don't they have enough evidence to and straighten this once and for all?
  • - "moot"? not by a longshot.

    "We have committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you." - Eusebius

    - decided "well before"? yeah, right...

    "The Arian controversy is the pivotal event in the history of Christian theology. For it was the beginnings of the complete deification of Jesus."

    "So glorious and powerful was the institution of Christendom that it was almost impossible to see through it to the man who stood behind it, the peasant from Galilee who had refused to cringe before the very power that crucified and was later officially to deify him. The fascinating thing about our day is that, as the political and theological structures of Christendom crash down before our eyes, we can see once again, through the rubble and dust of the centuries, a clearer picture of the prophet of Nazareth...

    ...I know it's a bit late to have made the discovery, but isn't it time we dismantled all the calvaries our words have built for Christ and simply tried to follow him, preferably in silence?"


    More lies are told about Jesus than anybody else - heck, didn't He warn us? There's more than one kind of Jesus: more commonly, there's the Jesus you've been taught; then there's the Jesus that can only be found - never taught...at least by anyone who needs to tell you what Jesus is supposed to be.

    So what's stopping you? - why, the ones who taught you. Shouldn't that tell you something?
  • rickymrickym PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    gekokujo said:
    "More lies are told about Jesus than anybody else - heck, didn't He warn us? There's more than one kind of Jesus: more commonly, there's the Jesus you've been taught; then there's the Jesus that can only be found - never taught...at least by anyone who needs to tell you what Jesus is supposed to be."

    has anybody read 'a course in miracles' the book claims that the author something like talked to jesus christ or whatever, anyway what happened is it is alternative version of the history of jesus and his teachings

    the books copyright is now invalid and anybody can download it from the net, it is at

    http://www.urtext.forplanetearth.com/

    actually there are other books like this, when i was young even 'edgar cayce' had his version in a book.
  • pollywogpollywog PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Originally posted by rickym

    has anybody read 'a course in miracles' the book claims that the author something like talked to jesus christ or whatever, anyway what happened is it is alternative version of the history of jesus and his teachings


    ...parang Conversations with God.
  • Originally posted by rickym
    if all these theories are false why doesn't the church just sue? don't they have enough evidence to and straighten this once and for all?

    the point isn't that the Church was right all along, the point is that so many people, either out of innocent ignorance or active rejection, keep positing "alternative" theories about Church history and Christ without referring to historical, verifiable documents that are publicly accessible. i don't mind the whole conspiracy bit, but the least they could do is make actual reference to real evidence, rather than refer to their favorite semi-fiction writer.

    besides, if people don't believe in Christ, then what's the point in proposing "alternative theories" about him, apart from playing the whole "I'm right and all of you are wrong" game?
    - decided "well before"? yeah, right...

    "The Arian controversy is the pivotal event in the history of Christian theology. For it was the beginnings of the complete deification of Jesus."

    gekokujo, you may want to read up a bit on pre-Arian texts. here are some snippets, for your enjoyment:

    Ignatius of Antioch

    "Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

    "For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

    "[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).


    Aristides

    "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).


    Tatian the Syrian

    "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" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).


    Melito of Sardis

    "It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).


    Irenaeus

    "For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

    "Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).


    Clement of Alexandria

    "The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for 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" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

    "Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son" (ibid., 10:110:1).


    Tertullian

    "God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God" (The Soul 41:3 [A.D. 210]).

    "The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 [A.D. 210]).

    "That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).


    Origen

    "Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).

    incidentally, Origen is Arius' mentor. so at least you have a reference on when exactly the Arian controversy started. and as can be plainly seen, orthodoxy did NOT agree with Arius from the beginning.

    any other issues you want to bring up? :)
Sign In or Register to comment.