the Bible vs the Davinci Code

Ummm... what "torments" are you talking about? Why would it be crucial for Him to have a sinful nature? Why would it be necessary to "show" that it could be done? The point of the Crucifixtion was that no one CAN. It is impossible for anyone with the exception of God. And that leads us to the next quote...

Wait. Sin is anything that does not conform to God's Will and Nature (you could say Will or Nature, but God's Will and Nature are always in perfect unity, so I left it as "and"). God cannot do anything outside His own will or nature (i.e. God cannot sin). If Christ was God, then Christ could NOT sin because God cannot sin.

Back to the point... I am not sure that you can make a claim regarding anything based on ONE verse. Are there any other non-apocryphal books that follow that idea?

 

Here is a good article.....


Breaking The Da Vinci Code

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/nov7.html

 

i still have to disagree with you. i feel the power of christ's understanding, and his work as our MEDIATOR with god is his human nature, which is like that of the rest of us. what would be the point of the devil taking jesus on in the wilderness with all the temptations? knowing god is perfect, and jesus is completely free of sin or even the ability to sin, where's the interest for the devil? it's like saying to a rock "don't be a rock anymore." and the rock 'decides' to stay a rock. big deal.

 

I am not basing it off any apopcryphal verses, that I can recall. Why would have Satan tempted Christ if he could not, not sin? Christ could have if he wanted to (Now that would have caused problems in heaven obviously) but he did not, based on his love for us. I think KC and I agree on this point and she obviously would not use the "Apocryphal Books", she's not Catholic.

 

Okay. I did some more research and this is what I found.

Christ did not have a sin nature, but that doesn't make it impossible to sin. Adam also did not have a sin nature, but he could still be tempted and coud still sin. Christ could not have had a sin nature because even if He never sinned in action, He would still be imperfect.

"If Jesus' human nature existed by itself, apart from the divine nature, it would have been a normal human nature and capable of sin. But, Jesus' human nature is not separate from His divine nature which is morally pure and incapable of sin. It would then seem that Jesus was able to be tempted in His human nature but not in His divine. In the one person of Christ, there dwells two natures: God and man (Col. 2:9). As God, Jesus could stand without the danger of sinning. As man, He could be tempted. Exactly how these two natures relate to each other in one person is not clarified in scripture. But, as you can see, it is possible that Jesus be divine and be tempted at the same time because He was both God and man. To say that Jesus had to have a sin nature in order to be tempted is incorrect. Rather, in order to be tempted, Jesus had to be human."

I got the above from www.carm.org. You can read the whole essay here:
http://www.carm.org/christadelphian/Jesus_nature.htm

Anyway, after looking at it, I can see how Christ could have sinned but at the same time did not at all have a sinful nature. I am not sure I agree with it, but at the same time, at least I can see how it is possible.

 

that's a total brain-cramper, ain't it?

 

it is quite complicated....

 

It says right in the front of the book.

All references to works, artwork, places texts, secret rituals, etc., is entirely factual, and they can still be seen today.

Yes, the DaVinci Code is a story, with made up characters and a pretty crazy plot.

However, it was originally intended to be a documentary based on fact and uncovered texts from the past. There are several articles out there which talk about this and explore it more in-depth.

But the Church made enough noise for the author to turn it into a fictional story instead of a documentary, so that they could dismiss it as "fictional," when in truth, the book is based very, very highly in fact.

Though to be fair, there are many criticisms of the book, which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_The_Da_Vinci_Code. However, most of the criticisms listed here are criticisms of the plot, not the underlying "code" or references to real things -- they are criticisms like "Silas escaped from prison because of an earthquake, but the prison he escaped from is not in a seismically active region," etc.

You should read the book "Angels and Demons," the precursor to the DaVinci Code. It explains a bit more on the whole Mary Magdalene story, and the other 106 gospels that were left out of the Bible but were recovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Personally I found the end of Angels and Demons to be slightly better. It was the same kind of novel -- twists and turns on every page -- but the ending left nothing to be desired and left a couple important questions unanswered (to keep you wondering), whereas the DaVinci Code just kind of answered most of its questions at the end, and there was no "BANG" in the ending, haha.

Both are fun to read, though, whether or not you consider it all fantasy.

 

And Holy Blood Holy Grail, which goes in depth about the bloodlines, and how they connect the house of David, with the house of Benjamin connecting back to Ancient Israel.

 

Whatever the direction the speculations in the da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons take, the fact is that there is no history of Jesus Christ from the ages of 12 to 30...it's possible to hypothesize about many scenarios for Jesus's life during that time period, whether you take the Gospels as literally true or not.

I've read both books, they were entertaining and interesting.