Customer Discussions > The Da Vinci Code forum

Did the Bible originally say that Jesus was God?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 10 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 9, 2007 3:38:27 AM PST
On this subject, I suggest that you read Jason Kerrigan's "Restoring the Biblical Christ: Is Jesus God?" It is all about exegesis. It also touches on variations in Biblical manuscripst and refers to the most ancient texts extant to show that the Bible did not originally declare that Christ was God himself. Very insightful.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2007 6:39:47 AM PST
P. Perry says:
The Holy Bible (Helios Biblios) is a veiled Sun Book (astrological treatise). The Gospel story is essentially a celestial allegory. The Roman aristocracy fused the Druidic Hesus and Hindu Chrishna into the supernatural savior (solar diety) Jesus Christ -- the one and only Sun of God. Hope this helps. Suggested reads: 'The Christ Conspiracy' and 'Brotherhood of the Sun'.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2007 3:02:14 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2007 6:48:17 PM PDT
Kevin Meares says:
Please that idiot Murdock (oh I"m sorry Achaiyra) is even worse at research then Brown. Can you please explain to those of us who have bothered sutdying religion why the roman empire would fures a druidic god, a hindu god and then drape the whole thing in Judaic tradition? You can't because Murdock is an amateur who's ideas are not taken seriously by any real scholars.

Jesus was a historical figure (based on the the ample historical evidence between christian, judaic and heretical soruces) who claimed to be the Judaic Messiah. He bears very little resemblence to the Hindu Krishna who was shot through the eye with an arrow as opposed to being nailed to a tree (which is a common euphimism for crucifiction).

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2007 6:11:00 PM PST
Delawanna says:
Read the Da Vinci Hoax. It debunks this whole book.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2007 7:14:35 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 17, 2007 7:16:27 AM PST
Vern says:
Very interesting to raise up - so long as non of us is a fundamentalist-
alwaysshoppingingod - it is not an easy question - and does not certainly need a yes no answer.

Isaie 9 v6 says "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace"
chanted in Hendel's Messiaha.

In other terms: Jesus answers as the mesiaha (anointed one). He calls himself 'son of man' following Daniel's phrophesy.

Now on the other hand. Jesus calls his Father God. We also have the Lord's prayer "Our Father" and the personal lord's prayer in John 17...where Jesus prays to the Father. There is a contradiction here. It is like the story of Abraham and Melkisedek. Abraham calls Melkisedek "Lord" and we assume that Abraham is higher because he must be a main figure in the Bible fondation.

How to resolve that question? Teosophie students dare to say that Christ was the son of God but not God, one with God but no fusion. Today that is quite daring.

In India and the Eastern religions, a high master can be one with God, that conception is not known in the western world. So either one is God or just human, there are no in betweens. So the conception of a man one with GOd, at the point of a confusion is very odd and the first christians having no source either than the jewish scriptures most certainly accepted Divinity and Christhood as one reality.

Today with our universal knowledge, we can compare to other cultures and see if that has existed in the concept.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2008 8:51:25 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 15, 2008 9:32:45 AM PDT
Yes, in the Bible actually Jesus referes to Jesus as God, quite often so, and also Jesus reffered himself as divine, not just a prophet. (Or this was so understood by his contemporaries. Todays readers of the Bible may not be aware of this. For example for the Jews of his day, if someone said he/she has capacity of removing sin, it was like saying "I am the divine!" for the Jews believed that only the God himself could cleanse the sin of humans. Or all mystery of using the names of God. For example if someone said "I am who I am" or "I am the one" it was using the name of the divine for himself, and killed for blasphemy. Things are complex.Thomas for example said "my Lord, and my God", there are many things.

As for the cultures of the times of historical Jesus: the idea that someone can be a god in human form was common. I mean really common. Examples abound.

But refferring to Dan Brown and his ideas and what he claims about the early Christians and the idea of divinity of Jesus than: I don't think that Dan Brown researched deeply the material he used in his book. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect writers to be like Umberto Ecco in their knowledge, but Dan Brown seems not to to know a lot about history of Christianity, history of art, etc. when he wrote the DVC, (maybe now he knows more), this is evident to me. I think the project was kind of too big for his knowledge, therefore all this confusion.For example I was surprised that he didn't know that the seem not to know that during the Avignon, not Rome was the sit of papacy (Templars and their execution). I mean there isn't only editors fault, this is obvious.

Just back to your question: what where the attributes of Jahwe in Old Testemnt, they are used for Jesus in the New Testament. For example his existence extends before the human birth, and so called and also the pre-existence before creation, etc. Actually examples about Jesus divinity abound. One prime example is when Johns speaks about Logs, (the Greek word for "the word" and not only the word, it s a complex term), "at the begining was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God, and the word became flesh, and lived among us." the idea of Logos as divine word is fascinating.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 25, 2008 1:50:35 AM PDT
JerseyManDan says:
Kerrigan's work is far from credible scholarship. The Bible as we see it today is 99.5% as accurate as it was the days it was written. It does claim that Christ is God (John 1:18 is sometimes translated as "...the only begotten God..."). Furthermore, it states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate persons, and each is called God. The Doctrine of the Trinity was not created by a church council, but rather derived directly from the writings of the apostles in the NT. Also, see Isaiah, where God repeatedly claims through the prophet that He alone is God and the savior of the world: a created being cannot do the work of forgiving mankind's sins agains and infinite God. Only God's spilled blood can appease his justice: the blood of Christ.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2008 1:22:15 PM PDT
"The Bible as we see it today is 99.5% as accurate as it was the days it was written."
Yes, so far I know this is right. This is amazing fact, when the earliest and later manuscripts are compared. And yes, DVC didn't get the facts right about the church council.

I just checked Kerrigan's book, read the first pages on http://amazon.com. I am surprised that he translates logos as "word" only.He seems to be ignorant of the full meaning of the word and its concept.This is a serious flaw. Yes, "word" is one meaning, but logos is also a very complex concept which semantics was clear to the authors and the audience of the Gospel of John. Not going to deeply into it, I just mention is was also the source and order of the universe, and logos meant "the divine". One thing is to see the word translated in a dictionary, and another thing is to understand its semantic meaning. How someone wants to compare manuscripts without knowledge of such a basic semantic meaning of such important concept? This is sad.

As to the Professor: is "helios biblios" supposed to mean " holy book?" If so, the words should be "hagios biblion," where "hagios" means "holy" and "biblion" means "book.Helios is of course the sun. As for historical Jesus; I didn't read the book you mention, and I am not familiar with the author, but as Kevin said, Jesus was a historical figure. The mythical Jesus theory si very XIXc. when the scholars didn't have sources we have today. With he development of biblical archeology, views were changed. You guess about whom we have more sources, about Jesus or about Socrates? Or what about Alexander the Great, is he not a historical person? Or should I think there were inventions,as there are not so many sources as compared to their popularity?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 5, 2008 9:23:11 AM PDT
John Carter says:
Rather than answering the question myself I would direct you to read the first chapter of the Gospel of John. It is very clear what he thought.

Posted on Dec 13, 2010 4:26:20 PM PST
P. Keefe says:
The New Testament was created by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Put together by the Romans in order to bring Christians into the empire. This, and much more about Christianity, is covered in my thriller, Digger's Bones.

Paul Mansfield Keefe's Digger's Bones is professionally written and fast-paced, evoking the thrills and conspiracy theories of Dan Brown.
- Rob Steiner, The New Podler Review of Books

There is a kind of an "Indiana Jones" and "DaVinci Code" feeling to the book.
-Allen Cook, The Book Review

Paul Mansfield Keefe
Digger's Bones
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  The Da Vinci Code forum
Participants:  9
Total posts:  10
Initial post:  Feb 9, 2007
Latest post:  Dec 13, 2010

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
The Da Vinci Code
The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown (Paperback - March 28, 2006)
3.7 out of 5 stars   (5,346)