Tuesday, May 30, 2006

...da vinci test

haven't watched Da vinci code yet.. don't really know if i'm still gonna catch it in theaters or just wait for the pirated DVD.. (also no X-men, huhuhu)

i can't believe i wrote this.. (scroll down where i talked about the Da Vinci Code)i'll probably rot in hell, saying I believed He could've gotten married. arrrrggghh oh yee of little faith. mind you, i wrote that, directly after reading the book.. but because of that book, i've read a LOT of stuff on the internet,.. The Da Vinci Hoax, Facts on the DaVinci, etc.. so my faith is now FULLY restored. and i've decided, now is the right time than any, to fight for my faith.

I tried re-reading the book, in preparation to watching the movie (just like when a new HP movie comes up, i do a review, to refresh my memory) and i found myself REALLY offended. Who is this Dan Brown, saying all these blasphemous things about MY faith. What right does he have, publishing these theories. (i can't really say INVENT 'cause he's not even original! as you all know, these theories were taken from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, to which he is being sued in London for plagiarism)

I absolutely hate the media's coverage for this movie.. they would say how controversial it was, and what DB's theories are. BUT they do nothing to show the Filipinos the facts and don't even attempt to refute these theories. They have all the chance to do these, to help 'confused' catholics but they instead concentrate how controversial the movie is which makes the public more interested in this friggin movie. I passed by a local channel while surfing (channel 9) and saw what i've been looking for. (just disappointed it's not on a bigger network, with a bigger audience) They had Theology professors, a priest from UST (i'm so sorry, i didn't know the other people).. Kit Tatad was there (i dunno why, think he was one of the people who wanted to ban the movie)and other catholic figures.. they were talking about stuff that i've already read about, but still, i'm happy they're at least discussing it on TV. (with about 5 people watching i'm sure, including me, huhuhu)

that night i found myself reading the bible. things i've learned that i should've known about. Mark and Luke are not part of the 12 apostles. There's Peter of course, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddeus, another Simon and Judas. All the memorizing in Gradeschool did me no good.

I've learned Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote in different styles. I found John the most detailed, (and scary).. in the betrayal of Judas, his name was never mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew, only on Mark, Luke and John. in Luke and John's, not only is Judas mentioned, they even said "Satan is inside him"... (ooh scary.)

I have promised myself that I would read the bible more from now on. How could I defend my faith when I know so little about it? I've got to get myself armed somewhat. Read, read, read! It's a good first step.

fave rebuttals (sorry, i can't quote, in the midst of all these googling, i can't locate where i read it)
1. DB said that the disciples where jealous of MM, they asked why He loved them much more than they, and that they would often kiss. A scholar said, if Jesus and MM were married, why would the apostles ask this? Wouldn't it be obvious that Jesus would love his wife more than them?
2. DB said "As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse." (Ch. 58)
I read this: First, the Gospel of Philip is not in Aramaic and never was. It is a Coptic translation of a Greek original. Second, the Greek word for "companion" is commonly used of friends and associates and does not mean spouse.
3. DB said "Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea... a relatively close vote at that." (ch. 55)"
I read this: The Council of Nicea met in order to discuss how Jesus was divine, not whether he was divine. The vote was not close: more like 250-2
(from here)
4. read this from here:Brown correctly observes that few Jewish men of Jesus' day did not marry. But why, then, did the apostle Paul, himself celibate, not mention Jesus and Mary when he argued that apostles could marry (1 Cor. 9:5)?
5.kakatawa toh: As a side note - The Gospel of Peter, one of the very Gospels that Brown claims as an earlier writing, blames the Jews for the crucifixion. Another Gnostic Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas, claims women must become men in order to receive salvation. Apparently Brown’s Gnostic Gospel is not only anti-Semitic, but also chauvinistic. (read this from here)
6. DB said: Christianity borrowed its beliefs from the pagan religion of Mithraism. Mithraism worshipped the pre-Christian God Mithras, called the Son of God and Light of the World, who was born on December 25th, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days
I read (same source as #5) this:
Scholars of Mithraism would strongly disagree with Brown on all of these points. Nowhere is Mithras given the title Son of God and the Light of the World. Brown apparently made this up because it sounded good. Mithras was born on December 25th, however this proves nothing. The New Testament never associated December 25th with the birth of Christ. The early Christians chose to celebrate the birth of Christ on this day intentionally to oppose the pagan mid-winter festival of Saturnalia. They never claimed Jesus was actually born on that date. The claim that Mithras died and was buried in a rock tomb is just not true. Scholars will tell you that in Mithraism there is no death of Mithras at all. So, there was no rock tomb and no resurrection.

whew. i could go on and on. kakafrustrate lang, di ko macopy paste yung mga nabasa ko kanina, di ko makita ulit.

Do we just take this crap and ignore it? As I read here:"There are some other religions which, if you insult their founder, they will not just be talking. They will make it painfully clear to you" .. cardinal was of course, referring to the Muslims, after a Western newspaper showed cartoons that caricatured the prophet Mohammed. DB is showing his disrespect to the millions of people who believe in Jesus! so, my question is.. how strong is your faith?

8 comments:

midnitebara said...

oh dear girl , you're so heated up. I've read the book but havent seen the movie yet. Its just fiction ,girl. Dont let a Dan Brown get to you. why dont you read Patricia Cornwell's books instead...you will like forensic science!!

midnitebara said...

oh, by the way I visited singapore daily photo already! (smile )

geWi said...

hehe hi! i just think it's time to stop being indifferent towards it.

thanks 4 d concern!

harbie said...

that's interesting... after reading my friend's blog (http://jessielei.blogspot.com/2006/05/da-vinci-code.html), i myself did some reading, and talagang mashe-shake ka if you don't know your faith. but somehow, i am welcoming the thought that i have questions, and that i don't know the answers, yet.

i'd probably rot in hell longer than you would, gewi. hehehe! =P

jane said...

ako nga after reading the book a year ago.. i started googling for articles that could prove or disprove what ive read.. curious ako e.. hehehe..

i guess all of us have questions.. thirsting for answers.. which we could only hope to find..

geWi said...

at least we got more interested in our faith's history because of his book.

i love googling about it, though. nagiging hobby na. ako naman jane, i read it 2 years ago, tas googled about it a few weeks after that.

*still can't believe i wrote that in my blog last time*

geWi said...

ohmygosh harbie.. ur friend's blog, i read most of it (most,kasi ang haba, and it was a bore to read)

it's meant to shake one's faith. sabi pa nya "It is important to mention at this point that whatever is written here is made from an objective and unbiased approach that is free from religious tradition and suggestions. Thus, as would any self-respecting historian, I will not be taking in the Bible as a factual historical reference. So if you feel the need to comment with Biblical verses, save them for yourselves. If you must, it would be wise to comment with an equally academic and objective approach. However, I did not entirely discard the Bible in this research. On the contrary, I did make references to it. The Bible may not be historically accurate but it was built upon actual historical events."

ano daw? super contradicting naman. if you can't refute with Bible verses, then don't use it AT all. katawa!

harbie said...

i guess what he meant was that, what he wrote wasn't entirely based on the bible, but since the bible is also reflective of historical events, he quoted instances and events from it. read the entire blog, it gives a background eh. the background is important to support the ideas. ;-)

anyways, i've know this guy since HS and he really doesn't stop researching until he comes to a point of no return. i believe he has strong catholic faith, but just to mess with our minds, he wrote parts of what he researched on his blog.