Gnosticism                

     To understand Gnosticism, one needs something very much like a musical ear. Such a Gnostic "musical ear" is not come by easily. The following characteristics may be considered normative for all Gnostic teachers and groups in  classical Gnosticism; thus one who adheres to some or all of them today might properly be called a Gnostic:

• The Gnostics posited an original spiritual unity that came to be split into a plurality.

• As a result of the pre-cosmic division the universe was created. This was done by a leader possessing inferior spiritual powers and who often resembled the Old Testament Jehovah.

• A female emanation of God was involved in the cosmic creation (albeit in a much more positive role than the leader).

• In the cosmos, space and time have a malevolent character and may be personified as demonic beings separating man from God.

• For man, the universe is a vast prison. He is enslaved both by the physical laws of nature and by such moral laws as the Mosaic code.

• Mankind may be personified as Adam, who lies in the deep sleep of ignorance, his powers of spiritual self-awareness stupefied by materiality.

• Within each natural man is an "inner man," a fallen spark of the divine substance. Since this exists in each man, we have the possibility of awakening from our stupefaction.

• What effects the awakening is not obedience, faith, or good works, but knowledge.

• Before the awakening, men undergo troubled dreams.

• Man does not attain the knowledge that awakens him from these dreams by cognition but through revelatory experience, and this knowledge is not information but a modification of the sensate being.

• The awakening (i.e., the salvation) of any individual is a cosmic event.

• Since the effort is to restore the wholeness and unity of the Godhead, active rebellion against the moral law of the Old Testament is enjoined upon every man.

Davincci Code

 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.       Galatians 1:9

Is the Davincci Code Based on Truth?

The short, simple answer is absolutely not. I have not read the book, nor do I have the desire to do so. I certainly would not give any of my money to support the publishing of something that is at best a good story line. My fear is that people will make a big deal out of nothing from this book. Christians will spend too much time talking and preaching against something that is absolutely no threat to the Christian doctrine and end up making a movie that exploits Christianity and uses the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ in vain.

     Brown's distortion of history is rampant throughout his novel. He assumes that Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire-rather, he simply granted freedom of worship in his Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. It was a subsequent successor, Theodosius (379-395), who made Christianity the state religion in 381. Brown's Constantine "upgraded a mortal Christ to deity," and "secured male dominance and suppression of women"... "converting the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity." He insists that Constantine canonized selected favorable Gospels from "more than 80 available." His deliberate distortions are, of course, contradicted by clear historical records....

Council of Nicaea

    The Council of Nicaea was convened in A.D. 325 with 318 bishops to settle disputes about Christology, not to dispute or modify the "canon." ("Canon," meaning standard, refers to those Scriptures that were accepted by the early churches as God-breathed, or inspired.) The principal precipitating issue was between Arius and Athanasius. Arius argued that Jesus was simply a created being. He was a great communicator and was causing deep disputes throughout the Empire. Athanasius argued for the full deity of Christ and was clearly vindicated by the proceedings of the Council (as exemplified by the famous Nicene Creed ).

Brown's Version

"It was at the Council of Nicaea in 325 that Church leaders decided by vote to make Jesus divine...Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet."

  And, according to Brown, it was a "close vote"! According to him, the presently accepted Gospels were selected from "more than 80" available. All of this is deliberate misrepresentation to support his attack on Jesus Christ and His church.

Twenty rulings were issued at the Council of Nicaea and the contents of all of them are still in existence: not one of them involved issues regarding the canon.

As for the vote that was finally taken, only 5 out of 318 dissented; only two of those refused to sign the resulting resolutions, which reaffirmed the deity of Christ, not issues regarding the canonical Gospels.

If Christ was not fully God, then God was not the Redeemer of mankind.

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Colossians 1:16 (Also, see Jn 1:1; Rom 9:5; Heb 1:1-8; etc.)

  During the 1st century-two centuries before the Council of Nicaea - even before the end of His earthly ministry, Christ's divinity was already being acknowledged, as evidenced by Thomas: "My Lord and my God!"¹

During the 2nd century - still a hundred years before the Council of Nicaea - we have ample quotes from the early church fathers:

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (A.D. 110): "There is One God who manifests himself through Jesus Christ his son"; "Son of Mary and Son of God…Jesus Christ our Lord…God Incarnate…Christ God," etc.

Polycarp of Bishop of Smyrna (A.D. 112-118), in his letter to the church at Philippi, assumes the divinity of Jesus, His glorification, etc.

Justin Martyr (~A.D. 150): "being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God"²; "...both God and Lord of hosts."³

Irenaeus (~A.D. 185): "our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King."⁴

Clement of Alexandria (~A.D. 200): "truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because he was His Son."⁵

Another of the often-overlooked rebuttals to those who deny Christ's claim to deity were the persecutions in Rome, and the voluntary martyrdom of the early Christians for their refusal to worship the emperor. Their martyrdom was a result of their exclusive commitment to Christ as God.

How We Got the New Testament

The New Testament was canonized in the 1st century while the apostles were alive and all facts could be checked out (Lk 1:2; Acts 1:21,22; 1 Jn 2:3). It was endorsed by Christ in advance (Jn 14:25-26) and was considered a "more sure word of prophecy" (2 Pet 1:16-19).

The Process

Letters were received and then circulated by the early church, and a growing group of them became recognized as authoritative (Apostolic) and in harmony with accepted doctrine. All 27 books were accepted by the end of the 1st century and every New Testament book was cited as authoritative by a church father within one generation.

The Gnostic Gospels

The term "gnostic" refers to gnosis , or knowledge. However, here it refers to the concept of hidden, secret, or special knowledge. The Gnostics were a growing problem in the early church and many of the New Testament epistles, as well as the numerous quotes from the early church fathers, were in rebuttal to the several heresies promoted by the Gnostics.

(In fact, Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians was a response to a forgery being circulated as if from him.⁶)

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2 Timothy 4:3

A large number of spurious documents emerged during the centuries following the ministries of the Apostles and were universally rejected by the early church. Copies of a group of these were found at Nag Hammadi (in Egypt) dating from the 3rd and 4th centuries, and these are uncritically accepted by Brown as accurate. These include The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Truth , and about four dozen others

They are not "Gospels" at all, but rather speculative opinions, totally devoid of any verifiable facts. Furthermore, they were written under false pseudonyms in an attempt to gain legitimacy. The early church rejected any documents under pseudonyms as being inconsistent with the concept of God-breathed inspiration.⁷

Lastly, they were all written centuries after the Gospel period - in contrast to the contemporaneous eyewitness accounts in the New Testament - and make no pretense of being actual records of events - in fact, they are anti-historical rather than simply non -historical!

In particular, Brown leans on The Gospel of Philip and its out-of-context fragmentary reference to a kiss - in which Jesus ostensibly kissed his other students as well - but this still suggests nothing about marriage or any sexual innuendo. Brown leans on a word in the "Aramaic" (although The Gospel of Philip came to us in Coptic!) that he maintains means "spouse." The word actually happens to be a loan word from the Greek: koinonia , which can mean companion, as in fellowship, etc.

The Gospel of Philip makes no reference that supports any of Brown's contentions. But even if it did, it would be irrelevant since it was written more than two centuries after the Gospel period, under a pseudonym posing as someone he wasn't. No serious scholar can take it seriously as having any historical merit.

(Many would seem to accept Napoleon's cynical perspective: "What is history, but a fable agreed upon?")

The popular novel is, indeed, malicious, deliberate fiction - posing subtly as factual - and is clearly, itself, a fulfillment of prophecy:

Even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:

2 Peter 2:1-3

But it can also be a blessing by causing serious Christians to "do their homework" and find out just how the Bible came into being and the process by which the New Testament achieved codification during their early years.⁸

For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

1 Corinthians 11:19

What has ignited a serious controversy among uninformed readers is that this work of fiction poses as factual and constitutes a deliberate, blasphemous attack on Christianity, the Bible, and Jesus Christ Himself.

The Priory of Sion

The reader of Brown's book is immediately confronted with a preliminary page declaring: "FACT: The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci..."

It is this introductory presentation, which positions these "facts" as foundational truths, that compromises Brown's novel as simply a work of fiction and has caused confusion among so many.

It turns out that "the Priory of Sion" was organized in 1956, with Pierre Plantard as its Grand Master, an anti-Semite with a criminal record for fraud. Its background was, indeed, "proven" by a cache of documents that were "discovered" in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris.

However, they were planted there by Pierre Plantard himself! One of his henchmen admitted to assisting him in the fabrication of these materials, including the genealogical tables and lists of the Priory's grand masters. This hoax was exposed in a series of French books and a BBC documentary in 1996.

To claim membership of these famous persons is actually an assault on their respective memories and reputations. And Leonardo da Vinci's alleged involvement is, of course, fundamental to Brown's storyline.

The alleged mission of the "Priory" is the protection of a deep secret which, it is insisted, would jeopardize the entire Christian Church as we know it: that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene, and a daughter born to them was secreted off to (what is now) France and subsequently led to the Merovingian dynasty of kings.

The Knights Templar is presented as the military arm of the Priory of Sion, charged with protecting this bloodline and its attendant secrets. The "Holy Grail" (Graal, Old French for "cup") is, thus, not the legendary chalice, but a code name for this bloodline (Sang Real, "Holy Blood").

Many twists on the legends, fables, and controversies surrounding the Knights Templar are exploited to embroider Brown's tale and to support the blasphemous myth it promotes. (The many misstatements and distortions concerning this Brotherhood lie outside our purposes here and are incidental to the main themes of Brown's book.)

The Merovingians

The Merovingians were a dynasty of Frankish kings from the 5th to the 8th centuries. According to tradition, they descended from Merovech, chief of the Salian Franks, whose son was Childeric I and whose grandson was Clovis I, the founder of the Frankish monarchy, who died in A.D. 511. They are sometimes called "the first race of the kings of France."

The allegation that they descended from the union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene lacks any credible evidence whatsoever. However, there are those who claim their lineage links many of the major royal families of Europe and belief in these legends may lie behind some of the activism toward the "New Europe." (These fables were popularized by a book by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, published in 1982.)

Opus Dei

Offsetting the intrigues of the Priory of Sion in Brown's novel are the machinations of Opus Dei. The "Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei" ("Work of God") was founded in Spain in 1928 by a 26-year-old Catholic priest, Josemaria Escriva, who died in 1975 and was canonized by Pope John Paul II in 2002. This organization helps its 80,000 recruited and indoctrinated members, and others, to a call to holiness by means of a rigorous daily routine, retreats, courses, and other undertakings. Fabulously wealthy and highly secretive, in Brown's novel the operatives of the Priory of Sion are subject to the intrigues - even assassinations - by ostensible operatives of Opus Dei, painted as a kind of "Vatican Mafia" for the purposes of Brown's plot tensions.

Magdalene Maligned

A spate of books has been published to catalog the numerous misstatements, distortions, and deliberate deceptions in Brown's book. But the primary offense - among many - is his trumpeting the Magdalene Heresy. This clearly is the central issue.

To add to the confusion, there are more than six Marys in the Scripture who are often misidentified:

1.      1) Mary the Mother of Jesus (deified by Catholics and virtually ignored by Protestants);¹

2.      2) Mary, Mother of John Mark,² prominent in the Jerusalem church, related to Barnabas,³ and owned a large home used for assembly;⁴

3.      3) Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus, contrasted with her sister Martha in her devotion⁵ and remembered for her memorial anointing.⁶ [Often also confused with a similar event in Galilee at a Pharisee's home also named Simon;⁷ the location, occasion, motivation, and atmosphere there seems distinct from the Bethany episode].

4.      4) Mary, Mother of James and Joseph,⁸ one of the group of Galilean women who supported Jesus financially⁹ and were present at the crucifixion, entombment, and witnessed the resurrection.

5.      5) Mary of Rome. Having served Paul and his party well elsewhere, moved to Rome;¹⁰

and, of course,

6.      6) Mary Magdalene, much maligned in both reputation and, here, ironically, in blasphemous libel. She was identified by her native city, Magdala, on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee. She was healed by Jesus of seven demons¹¹ and was a person of means and a leader among the women.

However, in A.D. 591, Pope Gregory the Great gave an Easter sermon in which he erroneously declared that the prostitute of Luke 7 was Mary Magdalene of Luke 8. In 1969, The Vatican corrected centuries of misrepresentation by acknowledging that there was no basis for her identification as a prostitute.

Mary Magdalene is very visible in the Gospel record: She followed Jesus from Galilee, ministered to Him,¹² beheld the crucifixion from afar,¹³ stood by the cross,¹⁴ located and watched the tomb,¹⁵ came early to the tomb with spices,¹⁶ was first to see the risen Lord,¹⁷ and reported the resurrection to the disciples.¹⁸

There is no basis to even suggest that Jesus was married, or that He had an "affair" with Mary Magdalene. This very notion demonstrates that the author has no concept of just Who Jesus is! Or what He was all about.

The Magdalene Heresy

Legends about Jesus and Mary Magdalene began to emerge in southern France during the 9th century, some even linking with the pagan goddess, Isis, etc. (Also, these were accompanied by myths about John the Baptist, whose successor was thought to be the Gnostic sex magician, Simon Magnus.¹⁹ )

Brown's novel attempts to support these outrageous notions by allusions from the Gnostic Gospels, in particular The Gospel of Philip. An out-of-context fragmentary reference to a kiss - in which Jesus kissed his other students as well - still suggests nothing about marriage or any sexual innuendos. Brown leans on a word in the "Aramaic" (although The Gospel of Philip came to us in Coptic) that he maintains means "spouse." The word happens to be a loan word from Greek, koinonia, which can mean companion, as in fellowship, etc.

The Gospel of Philip makes no reference that supports any of Brown's contentions. But even if it did, it would be irrelevant since it was written more than two centuries after the Gospel period, under a pseudonym posing as someone he wasn't. No serious scholar can take it seriously as having any historical merit.

But the reliance on The Gnostic Gospels, and twisted distortions of the early church councils, all raise serious questions: What makes us so confident that our Bible is what it purports to be? How do we know? What about these "missing" books of the Bible?