Christians try to debunk the "DaVinci Code"

In 325 AD, Constintine became a Christian and adopted Christianity as the state religion--the origin of the Roman Church.

Well, no, in fact, that's not what happened. Christianity didn't become the state religion of the Empire until the Emperor Theodosius made it so in AD 380.

The Council of Nicea was a political exercise--resulting in adoption of a number of the bureaucrats and practices of the pagen religion in exchange for agreement to the Roman Church and supremacy of the Bishop of Rome who also became the Pontinus Maximus, a title the Pope still holds.

The title is "Pontifex Maximus," and the Council of Nicaea didn't award it to anyone. It was taken by the Popes when the aforementioned Theodosius made Catholic Christianity the state religion, because it had always been the title of the chief religious authority in Rome.

And you'll search for a long time before you find a single "pagen" bureaucrat or practice that was endorsed by Nicaea. You don't even mention the chief reason why Nicaea was called in the first place, and its main order of business: to fully and completely affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Your version of "church history" is completely bogus.

"Pontifex Maximus" On that narrow point I stand corrected--I typed it in a hurry--that does not excuse the lack of care.

As to the rest, there may be room for a little construction but by and large, the Empire became Christian at the time of the Council of Nicea--and accommodated a number of the pagan practices, many of which are still with us today, the Roman organization or the Protestants.

However I am not certain you construe my view of the scripture correctly. There is in my mind no doubt that the text of the New Testament, and for that matter the Old Testament, stand on solid ground, not only as to authenticity of the current textual material we have but as evidence of the events and statements they record--Jesus Christ was executed, died, and rose alive from the dead on the third day. And the records of His testimony and ministry set forth actual sermons and events as they occurred.

Any criticism of intervening positions of the Roman Church is not addressed to the validity of the text but to positions such as supercessionalism; papal supremacy; priestly authority; and other doctrines which are not found anywhere in the scripture.

Further, none of this is directed to the Roman Church and its adherents of today. John Paul II is one of the giant figures in the history of the Church. And although I do not see the actors of today as having any real responsibility for actions and events of the Roman Church and its managers historically, John Paul has repudiated a number of what I view as the most grievous errors (the inquisition; the role of the Jews in God's Plan; and soforth) although I would not have argued there was any substantive need for him to do so. We are not judges of the position of our fellow believers ("judge not that you should be not judged; for by the same manner as you judge, so also will I judge you . . . "). And certainly, no one today would be judged, properly or not, on the basis of acts and decisions taken hundreds of years ago by actors long gone from the scene.

Finally, the whole point of the discussion is about the underlying premise of this book (the DeVinci code). The argument is that the descendants of Jesus have some particular role in upcoming affairs because they are His descendants. I think the completeness of the Biblical record tends to refute the possibility--and to the extent the proponents of the book want to take the position that concealed documents that are inconsistent with the Bible have some validity, I simply reject it. Because I think the Bible itself has such a sound evidentiary foundation.

Was Jesus married? I don't think the Bible conclusively resolves the question one way or the other. Although it seems likely that would have been an important fact that the Bible might have recorded had it been so. But maybe not. As an imperfect man myself, I tend to think it would be difficult to be a perfect man and not be married. But that issue is simply one God does not address--like a number of other things.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.