Good Stuff from Da Vinci Dialogue
It's been a good week over at The Da Vinci Dialogue. Here's a roundup of the hightlights:
The Da Vinci Dialogue
- Dr. Mark D. Roberts, Senior Pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church and adjunct professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, offers "Was Jesus Really Human?" The highlight is his comments regarding the Nag Hammadi texts: "I haven't read every word of the Gnostic writings in the Nag Hammadi Library, but I have read at least two-thirds of them. And I can assure you that you're not going to find a human Jesus there." He includes a link to online copies of the texts. Very helpful!
- Patrick Henry Reardon, Pastor of All Saints’ Orthodox Church in Chicago and Senior Editor of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, put together "What Really Happened at the Council of Nicaea?" The article clarifies that the central issue of the council was a decision of the Arian heresy—a relatively new teaching that Jesus was created by God the Father. Alan Schreck's more recent article covers much of the same territory, and is not quite as well-written.
- Darrell L. Bock, Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, provides a good examination of the transmission of oral traditions in "How did the Church have a codified set of beliefs before there was a New Testament?"
The Da Vinci Dialogue
posted by Greg Wright at 13:27
2 Comments:
I read the book and it is clear Dan Brown's world view is wholly centered around Christianity and a bit of knowledge about Islam and Jews. His assertion that all `major' religions give secondary position to the female ignores the still living `pagan' religion - Hinduism. May be he should explore and expand his knowledge of Shakti and come up with a correction in the sequel. I hope he does not regard Hinduism or Buddhisim as minor faiths since a third of the human race follows adhere to them!
Good input. But be careful about attributing what Brown's characters say to Brown himself. Remember that these Grail enthusiasts are totally wrapped up in Anglo-centric theories. So they're naturally biased.
That doesn't mean Dan Brown is!
Post a Comment
<< Home