WARNING, if anyone has not read the book and wants to or plans on seeing the movie instead, I suggest they not read this thread. Discussion of the themes of the book may reveal plot twists and spoil enjoyment of the book.

I just finished reading the book and found it very interesting. It's a better than average thriller but the historical themes I found extremely interesting. Some things I had already known, but others were new to me. In fact I was surprised that I had not known about them.

One of the main points is that much of the New Testament was written by the Roman Emperor Constantine 300-400 years after the death of Christ. Constantine saw Christianity rising and apparently took the attitude, if you can't beat 'em join 'em. Rather then let Christianity bring down the Roman Empire he decided to take control of it. The plethora of pagan symbology in Christianity seems to support this.

Another thing I found interesting is that, apparently, much of the historical points made in the book are not new or unknown but have been suppressed from being made widespread knowledge because of damage it might do.

For example I looked at the Last Supper and the figure to Christ's right is clearly a woman and not John. I consider myself pretty widley read yet I'd never heard of this before.

Anyone else want to comment?

Scott<>

Scott.Odd that you should bring this up.Last night,here in the UK,on National Geographic channel,was a two hour special on the Gospel of Judas.Explosive stuff or what.30 Gospels or more,only four chosen for the New Testament.Mathew,Mark,and Luke's Gospels,were not written by them.Judas's Gospel is dated (carbon dated),to about 170-200AD.He has a bad press,Jesus told him to betray him.Judas was Jesus's favourite.Wow.And that's just the first 45 minutes.
Before all this,same channel,Dan Brown was on,talking about unwrapping the DaVinci Code.Mary Magdelene was Jesus's wife.They had a daughter called Sara,and lived happily every after.
That painting by DaVinci,The Last Supper,does indeed show a woman,to Jesus's right.Both he and her,are in a "V" shape apart.A clear suggestion of the womb,and that both were "married".
The movie comes out May 25th,here in the UK.I can not wait to see it.Do I believe any of it... no.

Hi,
Since you posted this in the Religion Category, I will only add that Christians' religious beliefs come from the Bible and the Church. Books are written all the time, but the only one that counts is the Bible.

Nez, Yes I've been reading Judas documents. Apparently the document was stored in a safe deposit box in a bank where I do my banking! Oddly enough though, I think the revelations of that document actually support the concept of Jesus's divinity. Why would he ask Judas to betray him if he didn't anticipate what would happen? It indicates that he set the whole thing up.

Getting back to The DaVinci Code, do I believe that descendants of Christ exist? I don't know. I would have to see more evidence then contained in the book. Do I believe that the Church has suppressed facts and evidence that don't support its carefully crafted story of Christ? You bet I do!

There is no question that Jesus Christ was not one of the most, if not THE most, influential characters in recorded history. His teachings about peace and love should be followed and revered. But was he the son of God? Sorry, but I don't believe in that.

Hi,
Since you posted this in the Religion Category, I will only add that Christians' religious beliefs come from the Bible and the Church. Books are written all the time, but the only one that counts is the Bible.

Counts in what way? Are you saying that anything that contradicts the Bible doesn't count? What is the Bible, but a book?

The idea and teaching about the "judas" documents are really nothing new, we studied various *other documents or writings* and the idea that Judas was merely acting on Jesus instruction is a concept that some have accepted. One of the other things is that the greek word we use for betray actually means to "turn over" so it does not automatically mean that he turned him over against his wishes or will, but merely he turned him over.

The only way we know if it was a betrayal, is to know the idea of the use of the word. Christian teachings have assumed betrayal but if you change the word betrayal in the bible to merely handed over, it will give you a different outlook.

Hi,
Since you posted this in the Religion Category, I will only add that Christians' religious beliefs come from the Bible and the Church. Books are written all the time, but the only one that counts is the Bible.Most will agree that you are completely wrong about this.

The vatican CONTROLS EVERYTHING religion... you will never see the total truth about Jesus and you will not see ALL the gospels... as is the vatican knows of new gospels according to Mary Magdelene but will never print them because who she was... to me the bible is nothing more than a bunch of stories written by different people and different periods... can they all be true.. NO... why? Because people interpret what they hear and see in different ways and write them down to make it more exciting... humans makes mistakes.. there are many INCONSISTENCIES in the bible... if you don't believe me do a search... the Vatican is the final word when it comes to what we know about Christianity... is there more somewhere... MOST Definitely... will we ever see it.. NO... thats why I take this religion with a grain of salt... I DON'T BELIEVE ANY RELIGION IS PERFECT OR ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY CENSOR THEIR OWN WRITINGS... do I believe there is 1 powerful being who made all the universes and galaxies and decided EARTH will be the ONLY 1 with LIFE.. OH HELL NO!

Chuck,
That was my understanding. I was somewhat surprised by the hype about these new documents since I always thought there was at least differing schools of thought.

This actually points out how things have gotten garbled over the ages. It is clear, that the name of Judas has become synonymous with betrayal and treachery. That Judas' alleged betrayal is the root of anti-semitism. So, if these new documents confirm what some scholars have thought it takes away much of the reasons for Christians (at least) to hate Jews.

As a side note,The Roman Catholic Church has never officially stated that it believes Judas is in Hell, it does not know where his soul is.In other words, if he had not hanged himself,but repented his actions,it would still have been possible? For him to be made a saint, as was (Saint) Peter who had denied Christ three times.
As for the (Church) surpressing "important" historical documents,I believe that this probably happened.After Jesus's death,and the Romans attempt to keep the lid on Christianity,various sects would have had their own agenda.When Christianity became the main (Roman) religion,the Vatican,as it was later to become,must surelly have sensored documents to keep the masses "on the correct" track.I'm not saying that Catholisism is bad by the way,as I know many Catholics,wth whom I can have many rational discussions,even though it's not my view point.Yet that ugly word politics always rears it's head from time to time,and once again we have many different views upon the subject,which will continue long after all of us have gone to dust.

Related to hiding or suppressing documents:

Remember, "the Church" is generally not who discovers ancient texts... and to boot, most of the most famous ones were found by either non-Christians or non Catholic Christians: neither of which are interested in protecting the name of Catholic Christianity.

I'm not so sure about that, Rick. Firstly, in more ancient times, literacy was mostly the province of the Church. So, any documents found were more likely to be brought to the Church. Secondly, ancient documents discovered in modern times were often bought to the church for translation and/or verification.

I disagree on both counts.

1. Can you cite reputable source claiming that "literacy was the province of the Church"?

2. Can you name an ancient document discovered in modern times that was brought to the Church - with the exception of Codex Vaticanus?

Until the last couple hundred years, even the Church itself was not so interested in discovering old documents: I cite, for example, the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1859 in the rubbish bin of a monastary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus).

Despite that Archaeology was all but non-existent until the 18th century, "the Church" has always had plenty of enemies. Surely a huge reward would await the person who discovered something that proves what the church teaches or believes on a significant issue is wrong.

I believe the evidence shows that the Church is far more interested in truth over protecting a false belief. Example: the Church's allowing the Shroud of Turin to be tested. Granted the tests are not conclusive, but most Catholic Scholars agree that it does not date back to the time of Christ.

... Constantine saw Christianity rising and apparently took the attitude, if you can't beat 'em join 'em. Rather then let Christianity bring down the Roman Empire he decided to take control of it. The plethora of pagan symbology in Christianity seems to support this...

True, Constantine was more interested in political union within the empire than in true worship. That's why many of those who were baptized were allowed to retain their unChristian beliefs. The result was that Christianity began to fall away from the original teachings. This merging with the world had been warned against.

1 John 2:15-17; James 4:4; Rom. 12:2. James 1:27

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/churchhi/church6.htm

Thankfully the Church has recovered. A close examination of the beliefs and practices of today's Catholicism/Orthodoxy, along with an examination of what we have available to us from the writings of the earliest Christians, we find, an incredible consistency.

Thankfully, we now have an abundancy of ancient texts incredibly close (far closer than nearly any other ancient texts) to their dates of original composition - of both books of the NT and of writings of early Church Fathers - to affirm this.

:)
Hello everybody!
Will you allow an ignorant Jew to join this debate?
When I say "ignorant", I mean it: my knowledge regarding Christianity and the way it reached it's present "forms" so toeasto say, is merely nerolgeneral, and derived from History classes during high school (I oftenl regret not having a broader history knowledge - I find it necessary - almost imperative in many daily situations).
So:
I've read "Da Vinci Code" as a fascinating thriller. I regarded it as a wonderful historical fiction book.
Then, all of a sudden, there was a "burst" of nON FICTION programs dealing with the core of this book.
On the Natl. Geog. Channel, debates on the BBC Prime channel, on Discovery channel. To my great astonishment, I found out there were serious considerations regarding the most important issues brought to light in this book, and now, to spiced it even more, the whole story of Judas gospel was brought to public attention.
I'm not even trying to join the debate concerning the question of what is the truth, or why is it presented (or not) as it is, and how did it happen that Christianity reached it's state today, and how and why Constantinus turned to Christianity.
|I only wish to make one point, without getting involved in the debate concerning the origin of the Bible: I know that HUMAN beings decided which books were included in the Old Testament, and there are books we know about, but were excluded, although they already existed at that time, like for example the two Maccabean books.
If we, the Jews have knowledge of all our excluded books? How can I know, but I know there are more than one.
In the same manner, and for all the possible reasons one might think of, the same might have happened with the books concerning the beginning of Christianity.
I apologize if I might have hurt anybodies feeling, I had NO intention to do that.
Bye,
Millie

I don't think anyone will be offended by what you say.

I, too, am always amazed when fictions like The Davinci Code and The Last Temptation of Christ get so much hubbub.

I disagree on both counts.

1. Can you cite reputable source claiming that "literacy was the province of the Church"?

2. Can you name an ancient document discovered in modern times that was brought to the Church - with the exception of Codex Vaticanus?


1. Well I can't cite any specific source, but googling Medieval literacy brings back several links that appear to support what I said. Maybe if I rephrase it you will understand better. Most people could not read into medieval times. Peasants and such were not educated. News and entertainment were brought by minstrels or travelers. Literacy was something that was taught by the church to clergy and the nobility. Schools were almost always run by clergy.

2. No I can't, but then archeology is not my field.

:)
Hello everybody!
Will you allow an ignorant Jew to join this debate?


Millie,
All are welcome who wish to participate with open minds and/or civil discourse.

You make a valid point. I think the issue may be why certain books were excluded. The premise of The DaVinci Code is that they were excluded because they didn't support, or worse contradicted, the books that were included. Not sure if that is true of anything omitted from the Old Testament.

2. No I can't, but then archeology is not my field.

Oh, so saying "Secondly, ancient documents discovered in modern times were often bought to the church for translation and/or verification." was just a guess?

Oh, so saying "Secondly, ancient documents discovered in modern times were often bought to the church for translation and/or verification." was just a guess?

No, it was an impression I had based on things I must have read in the past, but nothing I could specifically cite without spending more time then I have in research, so I retracted it.

Millie,
All are welcome who wish to participate with open minds and/or civil discourse.

You make a valid point. I think the issue may be why certain books were excluded. The premise of The DaVinci Code is that they were excluded because they didn't support, or worse contradicted, the books that were included. Not sure if that is true of anything omitted from the Old Testament.

Hello,it's me again!
I don't want sound like my answer is soundly based on knowledge, I merely try to recollect whatever I was taught 46 yrs. Ago!
As far as I can remember, the reason for excluding some of the books had to do with different aspects which might nit have been in complete agreement with the "main stream"
- I'll try ro see if I can obtain something more substantial- I refer to the Old Testament ONLY.
I'll share with the forum here any further information I'll have, if and when I do.
Millie

One more thing:
Even if one believes the Bible was written, dictated, or at least inspired by a divine entity ,
I don't think we would disagree much that HUMAN BEINGS decided which books were included in the final
Form of The Book.
Millie

Just wanted to add, I haven't read the book or seen the movie, but my adoptive mom is really into this stuff. She read the DaVinci code with relish and saw all the little spin-off shows about it. Now she is reading a book called "The Pagan Christ", which she says is very good. I believe it says in it though that Jesus (and Mohammed and Buddha, etc) never existed. And that's rather a controversial and not well proven theory. However, she is really enjoying it, so I thought I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in the subject.

First off, wow, there's a book that says Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha never existed? Now there's a controversial statement if I ever saw one, and one that I definitely do not believe.

After looking over this thread, I want to make several comments.

The first thing I want to say is that I was very intrigued by reading this book and could not get myself to put it down for hours, prompting my dad to make fun of me that I was actually devouring an adult novel (but that's another issue entirely). Having been raised in a culturally Jewish household and coming to terms with my own religious beliefs, which are Christian, the book presented issues to me that, as I'm sure Dan Brown intended, made me question my beliefs, although not to the point of changing them, as I think my parents would have liked.

Although The DaVinci Code discusses some real people, real organizations, and real works of art, and presents actual myths (in other words the book contains some facts), this is a work of FICTION and is not to be taken to heart. Earlier in this thread, it was said that the Bible is the only book that counts. In my eyes, ANY book that makes the reader think "counts" and the thinking process the reader goes through is what makes the book a good read. As for "counting" in terms of religion, there definitely are inconsistencies within the text and questions raised by the text of the Bible. For example, how do we know for sure that Jesus walked on water or raised the dead? We don't. But some Christians have FAITH that these and other events occurred, and instead of immediately branding them as "wrong" we should accept that that is their belief, even if we disagree. Or you can go with what I believe, which is that it's not about the specific examples of Christ's work, it's not about every thing that the Bible tells us He did. It's about believing in Christ's message that we should respect and love each other as human beings.

Enough with my dealing with specific Christian beliefs, though. The DaVinci Code is an exciting work of historical fiction that takes the reader in, presents ideas for the reader to think about, and keeps the reader interested right to the end, which is what a great book SHOULD do. The ideas presented are not there for readers to say "yes this is true," but for readers to think "could this be possible?" I know I personally looked up several things mentioned in the book and was surprised to find them to be true, but did not take it as fact just from the book.

I personally cannot wait for the movie to come out and I know my parents and I are planning on seeing it as soon as it does, and I also know I'm looking forward to seeing what the movie keeps in and leaves out.

I've rambled for long enough now and if you've read the whole thing, thank you.

The deal had to go down in any case. Jesus, GOD in human form, had to walk among us then suffer the greatest sacrifice there is. After all, what great leader would have his people do anything that He Himself would not?
When it was time for the Christ to die, I doubt that any of the disciples would turn him over on their own for a few pieces of gold. Unless of course, Judas did not believe there is a GOD! Still, the master plan had to unfold so I don't find it too great a stretch that Christ picked Judas and told him what had to be done. In any case, we will all find out for sure very soon! As far as the Davinci Code goes, RUBBISH! The problem with people today is that they will fall for anything as long as they are fat and happy. That goes for me also. The only thing is, I woke up one morning not to long ago and realized that Bible prophecy was really coming true. The globalists are promoting a one world government and the new age movement is promoting a new religon and we sit by and watch it happen. Sovereign nations will soon cease to exist and a single global economic system is beginning to take shape. Yet we sit and argue about why Judas did what he did and wonder if the Christ, GOD in the human form, really just slipped away and had children instead of dying on the cross for you and me. Well, I guess the powers that are taking over our world as we once knew it have us exactly where they want us.

One more thing:
Even if one believes the Bible was written, dictated, or at least inspired by a divine entity ,
I don't think we would disagree much that HUMAN BEINGS decided which books were included in the final
form of The Book.
Millie

If we believe that he took time to inspire it, then it's only logical to conclude that the almighty author also made sure that only the books he wanted included were included. Otherwise we would be thinking inconsistently.

Human beings did decide which books would be included in the bible.

Human beings did decide which books would be included in the bible.

I didn't say they didn't. I Only pointed out that if God can be thought of as having inspired humans to write, then he can be thought of as having inspired humans to choose which ones were included. If we deny this then we are being illogical.

I didn't say they didn't. I Only pointed out that if God can be thought of as having inspired humans to write, then he can be thought of as having inspired humans to choose which ones were included. If we deny this then we are being illogical.
Well Starman dear, I guess we can attribute this to some kind of "inner voice" we've been discussing in another thread not far away from this one, only, maybe, somewhat different. The question is: did they obey and followed the instructions without personal intervenience?
Millie

As far as the Davinci Code goes, RUBBISH! The problem with people today is that they will fall for anything as long as they are fat and happy.

Can you be a little more specific? What about it was "rubbish"? I checked out a few things mentioned in the book and most were verifiable. I think the only point that wasn't was the issue of the existing bloodline.

Well Starman dear, I guess we can attribute this to some kind of "inner voice" we've been discussing in another thread not far away from this one, only, maybe, somewhat different. The question is: did they obey and followed the instructions without personal intervenience?
Millie

An almighty God would prevent that--correct? So I understand the rhetorical question you pose as casting doubt on God's existence or else his motives, wisdom, and power. I agree, anything can be attributed to anything we wish to attribute it to. For example, many evolutionists attribute the existence of life anywhere to the mindless process they call evolution while believers see the hand of God. Believers see evidence of intelligent design everywhere around us while many evolutionists see occurrences chance. Each group has its own view to which it is entitled.

Me? I share the Apostle Paul's view as expressed in the following scripture.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. NIV

I also share his view on the Bible

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,. NIV

That doesn't mean that YOU have to share it, it simply means that I do.


BTW

I don't believe in extensive debates since they tend to lead nowhere.
So my posts are not intended as challenges to anyone else's beliefs but merely the expression of my views with which others may or may not agree.

Sometimes I have needed guidance and I would just open the bible to a random place. Lo and behold, that spot in the bible would have the answer to my problem and would be comforting. Now Starman, I don't want to hear about scientific variables and such because there is nothing empirical about it, let alone logical... I only want you to ponder the fact that the word of God is... alive. Yes... it is a living thing and an entity all IT'S own, because of the energy behind IT and in IT. To sit and split hairs is nothing but a waste of time. Yours and mine. The greatest minds throughout history have never made a logical link from our plane to the spiritual plane of existence. I doubt that you will here... now "In the beginning there was the word." Christ is refurred to as the word. Christ is GOD in human form. Yes, it is true that people through the ages have tried to suppress that, however: they can never suppress GOD HIMSELF-The word.
By the way, the pseudo intellects usually lead us nowhere when the debates become extensive.

On a related note: I enjoyed Angels and Demons almost more than Da Vinci Code.

The greatest minds throughout history have never made a logical link from our plane to the spiritual plane of existance.


Agreed. The practice of religion and the worship of any entity has no basis in logic. It exists purely as a matter of faith. Many people's faith is extremely strong and provides them with strength and comfort. Other people prefer facts and/or logic to justify their beliefs. Whatever floats one's boat.


Christ is GOD in human form. Yes, it is true that people thru the ages have tried to supress that, however: they can never suppress GOD HIMSELF-The word.

I don't believe that anyone has tried to "suppress" that. Instead I think the word is "refute". Not everyone believes as you do. Msny people believe differently. Such people are comfortable in their own beliefs as you are on yours. They are also entitield to those beliefs as you are to yours.

Was Jesus Christ the son of God? I don't believe so. Was he one of the most influential characters in recorded history? Unquestionably! Was some of his teachings and philosophy worth passing on? Yes, I think they were.

Sometimes I have needed guidance and I would just open the bible to a random place. Lo and behold, that spot in the bible would have the answer to my problem and would be comforting. Now Starman, I don't want to hear about scientific variables and such because there is nothing empirical about it, let alone logical...I only want you to ponder the fact that the word of God is...alive. Yes...it is a living thing and an entity all IT'S own, because of the energy behind IT and in IT. To sit and split hairs is nothing but a waste of time. Yours and mine. The greatest minds throughout history have never made a logical link from our plane to the spiritual plane of existance. I doubt that you will here...now "In the beginning there was the word." Christ is refurred to as the word. Christ is GOD in human form. Yes, it is true that people thru the ages have tried to supress that, however: they can never suppress GOD HIMSELF-The word.
By the way, the pseudo intellects usually lead us nowhere when the debates become extensive.


Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive. It's OK to use reason in the service of faith. Ever hear of Thomas Aquinas? http://publish.uwo.ca/~dgault/phil20/reading2.htm


Not all Christians agree with your opinion on Jesus. Actually, what we all agree on, at least I am assuming we agree on, is that Jesus died for our sins and that salvation depends on recognizing that he did and living a life which honors that sacrifice.

BTW
Namecalling is not a Christian virtue.

So you believe as the New Age groups believe. Christ, Budha, Gandi were all just enlightened humans trying to bring peace to the planet. That's fine with me. The point that they discount GOD is not fine with me, however, I am fine with the fact that you have the right to believe anything you want to. There are as many paths as there are humans. Each one of us are somewhere on that path. I, in my own mind, have connected with the reality of this planet and what is happening in the bigger picture to see that the biblcal explanation runs parallel with where we are heading. IE: the globalists which are at this moment creating and implementing a one world government, national ID cards for you and me and, last but not least, the New Age movement with a new religon that works well with the New World Order. So you can believe anything you want to and if that doesn't work... they will tell you what to believe. No one will tell me what to believe when I know in my heart what is right. From that tiny little voice that speaks to us all. That is who I listen to. You have no argument from me as I can see you also have found the reality that works for you. That's where you are on your path.

Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive. It's OK to use reason in the service of faith. Ever hear of Thomas Aquinas? http://publish.uwo.ca/~dgault/phil20/reading2.htm


Not all Christians agree with your opinion on Jesus. Actually, what we all agree on is that Jesus died for our sins and that salvation depends on recognizing that he did and living accordingly.
Ahhh yes... now you drag me into the trap! I agree with you that a lot can be said about St. Aquinas and the Catholic church as a whole... I isn't going there baby! I will though, ask you to just look at Mexico and then you will have my complete opinion on that subject! As far as what all Christians agree with or don't agree with, I really could not care less what "christians" think. From the one's I have know, they don't think. I do not go to their church's to watch the fashion show and get updated on the latest gossip. No, don't you group me with that ilk!

So you believe as the New Age groups believe. Christ, Budha, Gandi were all just enlightened humans trying to bring peace to the planet. .



No, I never said that. I said that Christ died for our sins and that salvation comes only by recognizing that fact. I don't place Buddha, Mohammed, Gandhi, or any other human on the same level as Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 5:9
For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. NIV


The difference between us is that you believe him to be God while I believe him to be God's only begotten Son. Hope that clears up the confusion.

I said GOD in the flesh. If he is not one in the same with GOD then just how far removed is he. Splitting hairs! He was an immaculant conception so go figure!

I said GOD in the flesh. If he is not one in the same with GOD then just how far removed is he. Splitting hairs! He was an immaculant conception so go figure!


Since you ask for my views I will give them.
He was and still is closer to God than anyone else ever has been or will ever be. Yes, the Bible tells us he was sinless. But sinlessness does not mean that the sinless creature is God. Adam was sinless and was not God as well as the holy angels are sinless and they are not God. Immaculate conception means that Jesus' life force was transferred from heaven into Mary's womb. Which again doesn't automatically make him God.

Actually the Bible calls him the last Adam. In short, physically he had the same purity and uprightness of mind perfection body that Adam had before Adam sinned and fell from grace.

The scripture below speaks mankind's being created perfect.

Ecclesiastes 7:29
This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes."


That is why Jesus is referred to as the last Adam. Because he was Adam's equivalent. The difference is that the last Adam, Jesus, brought us life via obedience while the first Adam brought us death via disobedience.


1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

The three persons of the Godhead are, at the same time, noted in such Scriptures as Isaiah 48:16:

"I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me."

The speaker in this verse is obviously God, and yet He says He has been sent both by The Lord God (that is, the Father) and by His Spirit (that is, the Holy Spirit). The Trinity.

So not only do you say that Jesus is not GOD, I want you to tell me that the Holy Spirit is also not God. There are three aspects of GOD. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. If you think that GOD cannot represent Himself in only three ways, then you are saying that GOD is not representing Itself in the millions of ways known as humans. The kingdom of heaven is in you. You are telling me that GOD is limited in the way that GOD interacts with humanity as well as the life force that makes a flower grow. Oh well, the human mind is very limited and trying to completely understand is truly a chore. I keep trying though.

The three persons of the Godhead are, at the same time, noted in such Scriptures as Isaiah 48:16:

"I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me."

The speaker in this verse is obviously God, and yet He says He has been sent both by The Lord God (that is, the Father) and by His Spirit (that is, the Holy Spirit). The Trinity.

So not only do you say that Jesus is not GOD, I want you to tell me that the Holy Spirit is also not God. There are three aspects of GOD. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. If you think that GOD cannot represent Himself in only three ways, then you are saying that GOD is not representing Itself in the millions of ways known as humans. The kingdom of heaven is in you. You are telling me that GOD is limited in the way that GOD interacts with humanity as well as the life force that makes a flower grow. Oh well, the human mind is very limited and trying to completely understand is truely a chore. I keep trying though.



As I previously said, not all Christians are Trinitarian. Neither am I saying that God is limited in power. Those are your words not mine.


Isaiah 40:25-27

[QUOTE=Starman] Neither am I saying that God is limited in power.
Agree with that Starman!
God is definitely not limited in power, but we have limited skylines, it's us who don't see far enough, don't have the whole picture.
And so, we often don't follow.
Bye,
Millie

[QUOTE=Starman] Neither am I saying that God is limited in power.
Agree with that Starman!
God is definitely not limited in power, but we have limited skylines, it's us who don't see far enough, don't have the whole picture.
And so, we often don't follow.
Bye,
Millie


So what you are saying is that I am not following? Following who? The ideas of the Nicene Council? Please speak clearly. Otherwise your words can come across as indirects.

Starman,
I didn't mean you don't follow.
I was speaking about a very common trait of human beings, not only concerning God and faith issues, but even every day life.
Several years ago I wrote a small poem which can somehow enlighten what I mean here, though it was initiated by a completely different situation.
I wouldn't care sharing it here but it's in Hebrew, and I'm not sure I can translate it properly to English.
Bye,
Millie

Starman,
I didn't mean you don't follow.
I was speaking about a very common trait of human beings, not only concerning God and faith issues, but even every day life.
Several years ago I wrote a small poem which can somehow enlighten what I mean here, though it was initiated by a completely different situation.
I wouldn't care sharing it here but it's in Hebrew, and i"m not sure I can translate it properly to English.
Bye,
Millie

Sounds interesting. So you speak and write Hebrew. Some Bible scholars say that Hebrew was the original language given man in Eden and that it remained unchanged during the Tower of Babel incident described in Genesis.. Tell me, are you able to understand the old Hebrew text?

About the poem, Yes, I know that much is lost in translation. But I would be interested
In reading it in any case. You can email it to me if you wish at [email protected]

I shouldn't be answering for Millie, but for me, I can read and write Hebrew (not speak), and I have read directly from the Torah scroll in the synagogue during a service, and understood what I read. The Torah scrolls are probably about as close to the original Hebrew text as we can get at this point. Also at home, I read the Torah in Hebrew most of the time. My Bible has English on one side and Hebrew on the other, plus some commentaries, so if I need to check the meaning of something I can just look on the other side of the page. Once I learned the letters, I've found that Hebrew isn't so difficult, to read at least. The understanding part has taken me a bit longer. Yiddish on the other hand... phew! Yiddish is basically a German dialect with some added Hebrew and I think Russian, but it's written using Hebrew letters. I can tell when a book is written in Yiddish rather than Hebrew, but that's about it. I find Yiddish hard to read. Whereas I can understand Yiddish when it's spoken... lol... go figure. ;)

I learned my Hebrew for my Bar Mitzvah and promptly forgot it afterwards. :o While my grnadmother was still alive, I could speak a little Yiddish, but that's pretty much gone as well. Ah well.

Scott<>

Hi!
I'm back after the "Seder"
Yours is still a couple of hours ahead - isn't it?
We ate too much (as usual) and promised ourselves to not cook so much next time. But tomorrow, everyone will come here foe a late lunch, about 4 p.m. plus some close friends.
How are you doing, Chava?
Starman - of course I am fluent in Hebrew. It's the language of our country over here.
Everything is in Hebrew.
The Hebrew language was "asleep", so to say for the approx. 2000 years of live outside our country.
It was considered a holy language, used only for religious matters, but kept alive by all the scholars.
In the eastern parts of europe, the language used by Jews was Yiddish. Originated from German, mainly, with some Hebrew touches here and there, "spiced" with the old, holy language. One of these words infiltrated American English: hutzpa=audacity. In every country were it was used, words of the local language were brought into yiddish.
That's how we ended with several jargons of a jargon. I know,now you probably sigh and think:... but Germany is not in East Europe!" you're right - have I ever said we're not a complicated nation?
If you wish there's more toit. And there's another Jewish jargon which originated in Spain: Ladino.
Back to yiddish, it's written with Hebrew letters, but, unlike Hebrew, it 's written with characters which stand for vowels.
Hebrew: when the Jews decided their only place in the world is their historical homeland, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda
brought it back to life. He lived in Jerusalem (was born In in Russia) - he forced all his family to speak only Hebrew, at a time when no one did!
He had to invent a lot of words which didn't exist at the time the Bible was written- he had to bring life to the language in the Bible , and make it accessible to daily life.
When the Dead-Sea Scrolls were found, it turned out that the Hebrew version today is exactly like the one used at the time these scrolls were written!
I don't know about the language in Eden. The Hebrew we know evolved from other semitic ancient languages.
The shape of the letters, though, is quite different from these used in the above mentioned scrolls.
Modern Hebrew is written almost without vowels, but, unlike the Bible, it's also stripped of the little dots which act as vowels in the holy texts. It's not as difficult like it sounds: you get used to it quickly, and when you do, you find out the little dots only slow you down!
Chava, I admire your Hebrew understanding
just from the English translation!
That's great!
One last thing: I promise!
The text in the Bible is sometimes enigmatic, and so, it got A LOT of interpretations by all the scholars who studied it.
Bye for now,
And A very happy Pesah!
Millie :)

About the poem, Yes, I know that much is lost in translation. But I would be interested
in reading it in any case. You can email it to me if you wish at [email protected]
I will, but it will take me some time, with all the family now during Pesah . I really need some peace of mind to do it, but I've been already tossing it arouond in my mind.
Millie

Hi!
I'm back after the "Seder"
Yours is still a couple of hours ahead - isn't it?
We ate too much (as usual) and promised ourselves to not cook so much next time. But tomorrow, everyone will come here foe a late lunch, about 4 p.m. plus some close friends.
How are you doing, Chava?

Yes from where I live here in western Canada, Israel is 9 hours ahead! So right now as I'm just recovering after the seder, having put the kids to bed, and getting ready for bed soon myself, you are just waking up! :)

Our first seder was awesomely delicious. My mother-in-law is here and she cooked a complete traditional Ashkenazi seder meal, complete with baking for dessert! I ate way too much of course and really regret it because now I feel the baby pushing on my stomach. Bleah. But otherwise yes I am doing a lot better since the fall.


Starman - of course I am fluent in Hebrew. It's the language of our country over here.
Everything is in Hebrew.
The Hebrew language was "asleep", so to say for the approx. 2000 years of live outside our country...

Thanks for the wonderful explanation about the Hebrew language. It was perfect! Very few people seem to realize that the Hebrew spoken today is pretty much identical to that spoken in biblical times. Anyway what an awesome post. I wanted to comment on it as usual GRRRR but once again I am not allowed to give you anymore reputation for now. Sigh.

Thanks dear!
Sweet dreams!
And I hope the food will not cause a problem.Cakes are forever a problem mine was difficult this time I had to pay atttention that it won't have milk! (that's a new thing - I don't think I should get too personal on a thread meant to deal with such a different topic!
As for the credits - I don't understand how they're given when and why, and once I wastn't allowed to start a thread - but I could after another min.
Sweet dreams, Millie

Well luckily for me my mother-in-law made the cakes, haha, so I didn't have to worry. We had a honey cake and an angel food cake. I think she might be making a whole bunch more for the children's seder tomorrow, too. I'm glad she's cooking and not me! :p

Regarding the credits, when I like what someone has posted, I like to leave a comment for them, which appears as a little box under your post. However, it seems I give out too many comments haha, so I'm always getting a message that I've given out too much reputation. Can I help it if I want to be nice to everyone?? :p

Have a good day!

Hi Milli.

Thank you for the information about the Hebrew language.
God bless!

BTW
I apologize for my previous misunderstanding.

As for the credits - I don;t understand how they're given when and why, and once i wastn't allowed to start a thread - but i could after another min.
Sweet dreams, Millie

The Comments feature allows you to leave comment that appear as part of the note. This is a very important feature as it allows for affirmation or not of the quality of the advice within the post. The site also has features that prevent someone from spamming the board by setting the amount of time they have to wait before they can make another post.

Thanks Scott,
I'm not allowed to credit you right now, and I can see why you gave it up.
In any case, I think a thank you notice means more to the recipient, in any case.
Bye,
Millie :)

I saw the movie Da vinci Code seek the truth and lets say m dissapointed, its good but not the same as the book- which was fantastic for whatever it is worth in what it is suggesting. The movie didn't quite have the same ending and the actors not so convincingm but then for all readers, books are always better than the movie aye.

By the way I also agree that let each person decide for themselves what they believe or disbelive.