Connie,

His fact is that they have been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and their practice of coporal mortification.

Here is a link discussing this controversy. It offers both viewpoints:

http://www.americamagazine.org/martin-opusdei.cfm

Hi girls,

O.K. This is going to be long,

I was a member of The Opus Dei for 4 or 5 years, everything Connie is saying is true, that's the description of this congrgation, but they also have some obscurities and wrong ways of doing it.

My relationship with "Opus Dei" began, in a very strange way.
My grandma had given a piece of land to the Church, for the construction of a Chapel, as there was not one near my grandma's home.
At first the Church put on a tent and a priest would offer Mass evry Sunday and showed Religiuos movies for the kids. Suddenly the tent was gone and a few years went by with no activity.
One day a man from "Opus Dei" arrived at my grandma's home to tell her that the Church had given them the land for the construction of an Institue for girls, as long as they had a Chapel inside. So my family began to assist to that chapel to Mass.
The moment came when I had to look for a good school for my sons, and they recommended their school. So I enrolled my kids there.
At first everything was great, as my grandma had given the land, and her check for them arrived every month, I was considered one of "the elite" I was been invited to lectures, to breakfasts at fancy hotels, to lunch at wonderful houses etc.
At that time I was a very scared young woman, I had two kids and was dealing with abuse and infidelity on my marriage, I didn't have many friends, here was the opportunity of belonging, I felt welcomed. The problem was that the messages I was getting were WRONG!!!
It was O.K. if your husband cheated on you, you had to take on everything because you were the pillar of your home, you had to make anything to keep your marriage. Even if it meant accepting beatings and mistresses. Being a woman was the same as a martyr, all in sake of your husband. Birth control was not accepted, they all had 8 or 9 kids, in hands of the maids, because this ladies were very busy attending social activities with other "Opus dei" ladies. Women were not supposed to work, their place was taking care of home and kids, but they were hardly home. And what did they expect from their husbands...money!!! as long as the husband payed the bills and give them lots of money they were happy.
I began to realise all of these, felt it wasn't what I wanted my life to be. I could see their husbands at Mass praying and hitting their chests, but I knew they all had mistresses or were doing dishonest bussinesses.

And yes, Evy there was brainwashing, I felt I was being brainwashed, they also would put their attention on 16 or 17 years old girls, and convince them to leave home and go live in their residence, they would keep them from visiting their parents and force them to give their belongings and money. I know of girls that finally had to escape from windows.
One day as I was dressing to attend a meeting with them, I realised I was putting on a costume...I was putting on pantyhose and a cocktail dress!!!! Because I was no longer me, I was "enjoying" being abused, I had developed an obsession on discovering infidelities from my husband.
At the same time I began to have problems with my sons school,and in the end had to take them out at the middle of School term. There was a lot of things I didn't like. For example, teachers would hit students, my middle son's best friend was seriuosly hurt by the teacher, and had to have some stitches on the lip. My sons were talking about how The Virgin Mary was appearing at the School Chappel to listen if any student was having "bad thoughts" (sex thoughts). My kids also put their hands on their eyes if there was a bikini woman on TV. Things like that. I din't want to have closed mind sons. I didn't like the way they started to judge me, like "mom are you drinking again?? just because I had a glass of wine??

Now I even get shivers when I hear "Opus Dei", I don't want any influence of it on my family.

And you know what is the saddest thing ??? That all of it is about "Money" of controlling people and situations, dealing bussinesses to get hands on money.

This congregation was formed by "Monseñor de Ballager", a priest from Spain, I think he was just recently being beatificated.

On 1983, the first time Pope Jhon Paul the Second came to Guatemala, my grandma was awarded with a certificate, assuring her a place in heaven for the land she had given to The Church, I know she is with God right now, but because she deserved it as a person, not because she gave a piece of land....

Love,

Tish

Wow Tish... sorry to hear all that you have been through there. You sure have come a long way there Dear.

...and from reading that article that I just posted a link from, I would say that they do fit the criteria for a secret society as well. Very secretive group in many respects. Glad you got out.

Well, that now proves that what the author of "The DaVinci Code" said was a fact.
I'm sorry you and your family had to go through all of that, Tish . You must've been very strong to leave.

hi veneo,

i just remembered that you were the one who got me interested in reading the book! the least that could be done is to discuss it with you.

so, what to say? any suggestions?

amy

Hi Kel and Evy,

Now I am more interested in reading the book.

It was very easy to get out, because I was aware of what was going on. I have some friends that are very involved, and refuse to accept the truth. I hope they "see" it all soon.
I have to be thankful for my inner strength and stubborness. I can ride along with anything for a while, until I feel it goes against myself, or my loved ones.

Love,

Tish

I also have friends involved in coercing, brainwashing sects, such as the Hare Krisnas, who seem all nice and everything at first and then put you down and say you are worthless while the people at the top are peadophiles. I have two other close friends who were involved in an obscure cult, where the Guru claimed to be the reincarnation of Krisna, Jesus and the Buddha , had peculiar ideas about life, such as Micheal Jackson being the devil and other mad things. They used to have to eat a menu which he made up, and do everything he said. They were brainwashed. He has centres round the world and makes the whole thing look like a charity, used to call himself "Buddha Matreyia" and now calls himself "Archangel Micheal". Anyway, one of my friends eventually left and was branded a demon. And my other friend has finally left, and the experience was so intense for her that she steers well clear of the New Age scene now, an has a job in an insurance company, living a very "straight" life (the other extreme).

That's Amy... I guess you read it after I brought the subject up after the special aired.

Humm...? What to discuss about it? There is so much one could discuss, so where to start?

I know... you already said you liked it. So, tell me why you liked it and why would you recommend it to others?

Hi Tish ,

I hear ya on the inner strength and stubbornesss... I share those atributes with you Hon. Your experience reminds me of when I went through my born again Christian stage in college. After about a year of people telling me how things are, how the bible should be interperted, how I should and should not act, what I should and should not do, and that all of my family was going to hell if they didn't accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior... Things were no longer sitting right with me and I began thinking for myself and backed away from the group of people I was involved with. From that point on, I've just explored on my own and opened myself up to all that is out there, and came to my own thoughts and feelings about things. That's way I like to read books like this. They expand my mind and bring new understandings. I love learning (go figure, I'm a lot Virgo and Gemini )!

Well....I still don't have the book, but I'll get it eventually....cuz I can't be left in the dark after reading six exciting chapters....

Connie and Kelly.........I went to the links that you both posted and read each of them.....and they do sorta present different pictures of Opus Dei.....I guess one has to draw their own conclusions.

If nothing else they will certainly get a lot of attention,since being mentioned in the book....

Tish.......sorry to hear of your bad experience with them....at least you did get out....

Until I went to Dan Brown's website I had never, ever, heard of them (and I used to be a Catholic too)....

Love,
Rainbow

Hi girls,

Hi Evy, Thinking about what we are talking, took me to one thought...POWER.
All of this is about it, having power over people. Many politicians and religiuos leaders forget what they stand for when they taste a little power. Power is not mentioned on the 7 sins, but it should be.

Hi Kel, people like us that are on a path of search, encounter many sects and organizations that at first seem to be the right track, until we realize they're not. The good thing is that we have been able to get away.

Hi Rainbow, I guess you haven't heard from them because Opus Dei was created in Spain and they mostly functions in Latin America.

Love,

Tish

I just had the chance to catch up on the thread. This may be a long post too as I have a lot to reply to. But it won't be as long as the book you have read.

First let me say that I was not angry about what was said about Opus Dei. I was angry at having posted twice and having nothing that I addressed regarding my thoughts on the book and my explanation even acknowledged. Instead I was told that what Prox and I stated were "just beliefs." That is true but is that not equally as true as everything you all have said on this thread and everything the author has said and put in his book? There is more than just one viewpoint on everything. As Rainbow stated about the sites we presented, they have differing viewpoints and we need all views of things to form our opinions and our beliefs. The book itself is controversial. Did you expect to present it here on the threads without getting controversy? Whatever a person's beliefs may be, even if they disagree with my beliefs, I feel that everyone's beliefs should be treated respectfully because our beliefs are part of who we are as persons. If we ignore someone's beliefs and just dismiss them because they disagree with our beliefs we are ignoring the person. For that reason, even though I am always willing to admit and apologize when I have felt I was out of line, I am not going to apologize here because I feel my anger at having my opinion and my beliefs dismissed was justified. Put yourself in my shoes and how would you feel? I felt it was very rude.

Tish,I'm sorry you had such an awful experience with Opus Dei. What happened to you was very wrong. There are control freaks and idiots every where in life and the church and priesthood are no exception. Kel, I'm aware of the controversy surrounding Opus Dei. ABC News did an interview regarding that and it was in all the news. There is also controversy within the Catholic Church about Opus Dei because within the Church there are liberals and conservatives just like everywhere else in life. A lot of Catholics don't like Opus Dei because it is a very conservative organization that takes it's practices of Corporal Mortification from the ancient monks of the Church and they don't like it for all the other reasons discussed here either. I myself would not join an organization like Opus Dei or recommend it to anyone else because I am not into that kind of thing. But some people are. There are those who have joined Opus Dei and found it to be a very rewarding experience. The good it does in the world has never been questioned and even your author described the sect as "devout." Opus Dei has very austere practices that just are not my cup of tea and they may not be yours but some people like that sort of thing. Couldn't it also be said that even Ghandi had austere practices? Ghandi fasted to the point of starvation. He went way beyond what most people would do. Most monks in the Catholic church and Buddhism have what we might consider austere practices. To each their own. Some folks like that kind of thing. Apparently most Americans don't because there are only 5000 Americans who belong to Opus Dei. Whatever you may think of the practices of Opus Dei it is hardly a "secret sect" as the author implies. It has been widely promoted by Pope John Paul because it is a layman's evangelization organization and this pope has promoted evangelization amongst the laity. Tish is correct in that in 2002 Pope John Paul beatified the founder of Opus Dei which means he was declared a saint. That met with opposition in the church too. Many Catholics, including priests and nuns, were very much against his beatification.

As for the other practices of Opus Dei such as asking for people's salaries and living in dormatories where they are separated from parents I guess that could be looked at suspiciously if what you are looking for is cultism. Along those lines then couldn't we also say that the hippie's of the 60's and 70's were also a cult? They too had communal living with everyone sharing what they had with the community? If we are into labeling couldn't we label many things in our society as "cults?" There are those who might even suggest that CE itself is a form of a cult. A group of people who join the site because they have the same goals in life. We even have a community co-op now that is designed to make money to keep the site functioning which is the same reason Opus Dei asks for the salaries of it's members. The money is used to house and feed the members and keep the organization functioning in the world and those who join have the same goals in life. We tend to perceive things according to what we are looking for.

I stated that the author of this book is doing some "brainwashing" of his own. He is. Particularly in regard to the paintings of Da Vinci. If it is a historical "fact" that Da Vinci belonged to a secret society that "fact" is not in any of the biographies I have read on Da Vinci. The author is particularly using the madison avenue adman technique of the power of suggestion regarding Da Vinci's paintings. In the show regarding "The Da Vinci Code" he stood before Da Vinci's paintings and pointed out to the audience where Da Vinci's "hidden messages" were located. Any one knows that no two people looking at a painting are going to see the same things in that painting. We interpret art as we do music lyrics according to our own experience and our own perceptions of what we see and hear. But if someone points out something to us in a painting or an ad that is all we are going to see from that point on. I can prove that. Did you know there is an arrow in the Fed Ex logo? I am going to attach that logo. Look for the arrow. It is contained between the E and X on the logo. Now once you see that I can guarantee you that from now on every time you see a Fed Ex truck on the road all you are going to see is that arrow. Is that arrow also a hidden secret? No just an ad technique. That is the form of brainwashing that we encounter every time we turn on our TV sets. There are subliminal messages that we are being bombarded by all the time. Only our subconscious picks up on those messages. We will see in art or ad logos or anything else what we are told is there. That is the power of suggestion. Also ALL art contains something the artist is trying to convey to those who see his paintings. It could for that reason be said that all art contains "hidden messages that go beneath the surface of the paint." This author uses partial historical facts and he states facts that he interprets according to his own agenda. He can do that because he writes fiction. In books of fiction you have literary license to "play" with facts and pretty much say what you want to say. If this were a non-fiction book he would be laughed out of town by historians. I am wondering why Opus Dei or the church does not sue for his using their name in this. I am sure they could but that would only add fuel to the fire.

The author of the book had his historical facts just plain wrong regarding what he stated about the early Christians not believing that Jesus was divine until after a "power play" at the Council of Nicea. Christians believed in the divinity of Christ from the beginning. Read St. John's Gospel for evidence. He states it in his prolouge which is the most beautiful passage in Scripture. Then goes on in the rest of his Gospel to point out the divinity of Jesus. Or read about the history of Christianity if you prefer that to Scripture. In fact, the Council of Nicea in 312 was called to address a heresy that was begun by Arius, a priest in Alexandria who was teaching that Jesus was just human. It was confusing the laity and the heresy was becoming far spread. It is called the Arian heresy. It still exists today in the Jehovah Witnesses. And apparently that heresy is what the author believes as well and is promoting. They say there is no new heresies. The old ones just keep resurfacing. I am going to post the historical facts regarding the Council of Nicea. Not from a Christian site but from Columbia University. I think it's outrageous of this author to suggest these bishops who were tortured horribly for their beliefs only wanted power and control as the reason for the council. By 312 AD many Christians and bishops had died for their faith. Those at this council bore the scars from being tortured. Some with an eye or both eyes gouged out. I am going to also post the TRUE facts of what the Espiscopalian minister John Sewell ACTUALLY said. He was in no way endorsing this book as the author suggests at his site. He took things Sewell said out of context once again to suit his agenda. Nor did Sewell condemn the book because any mainline church welcomes questioning since that is how faith grows. Mostly though it is because the church learned from their mistakes. Anything they condemn makes people want to read or see all the more. The author and his publishing company are clever. Create a controversy and people can't wait to read it. It is what makes Jerry Springer and "reality" TV so popular in our society today. As Sewell said controversy is good because it causes us to question and give our different viewpoints. That helps us learn and form our faith and beliefs. So it is good to acknowledge all viewpoints and read more instead of just taking some author of fiction's word as to what is fact and what is not. I don't know what the author's intentions are and it is not up to me to judge his intentions. I haven't read the book because I don't like mystery novels. That alone would be a turn off to me. From what I saw on the show regarding the book it further turned me off. It isn't my cup of tea.

The Fed Ex logo is attached. See if you can find the "hidden secret" of the arrow.



Love, Connie

If you read this you will discover that it was Arius, not the bishops who was after control. Because after the councils decision he even took the word homoousious, meaning one in substance or one in being, and intrepreted it to suit his agenda and beliefs. An interesting thing about Arius is that he died along the side of a road when he was relieving himself. His bowels exploded. I think maybe that was because he was so anal retentive. An interesting thing about heresies is that they hardly ever began amongst the laity. It was always priests that started them.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

The Council of Nicea

When Constantine defeated Emperor Licinius in 323 AD he ended the persecutions against the Christian church. Shortly afterwards Christians faced a trouble from within: the Arian controversy began and threatened to divide the church. The problem began in Alexandria, it started as a debate between the bishop Alexander and the presbyter (pastor, or priest) Arius. Arius proposed that if the Father begat the Son, the latter must have had a beginning, that there was a time when he was not, and that his substance was from nothing like the rest of creation. The Council of Nicea, a gathering similar to the one described in Acts 15:4-22, condemned the beliefs of Arius and wrote the first version of the now famous creed proclaiming that the Son was "one in being with the Father" by use of the Greek word "homoousius."
How Controversial was the Arian Controversy?
There were some three hundred bishops gathered at the Council of Nicea from all around the world. Eusebius lists many of them and their country of origin in his writings. It should be remembered that many of those present had, because of the recent persecutions, suffered and had faced threat of death for their faith. These were not wishy-washy men. It might also be remarked, that they were extremely sensitive to details of doctrine. As evidence of this, the second major concern of the Council of Nicea was to address the hotly debated question of what the proper day was to celebrate the resurrection.
The bishops of the Council stopped their ears on hearing the words of Arius and immediately rejected his teaching as distant and alien from the belief of the Church. They tore to pieces a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia containing Arius' teaching, as well as an Arian confession of faith (see the appendix on the Council of Nicea in Baker Book House's, "Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History").

Originally seventeen of those bishops gathered at the council were unwilling to sign the Creed penned by the Council, and all but three of these were convinced to sign by the end. It is thus apparent that the Arians were a distinct minority among the bishops. Initially there was some resistance to the Nicene Creed, not because of what it said but because of how it said it. Many objected to the use of the word "homoousias" in an official document because it was not used in Scripture, despite their agreement with the meaning it conveyed.

The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new. Athanasius says, "But concerning matters of faith, they [the bishops assembled at Nicea] did not write: 'It has been decided,' but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon confessed how they believed. This they did to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times..." (Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338). In this regard also, Athanasius askes rhetorically, "... how many fathers [in other words, the writings of the early Christians] can you cite for your phrases?" (Ibid, p325)

It must be concluded, then, that the controversy was between a great majority who held the belief that the doctrine expressed by the Nicene Creed was ancient and Apostolic, and a minority who believed that Arius' new interpretation of the faith was correct .

The Word Homoousious

The Nicene Creed introduced the word "homoousious" or "consubstantial" meaning "of one substance." This word was not invented at the Council. Eusebius writes that some of the "most learned and distinguished of the ancient bishops had made use of consubstantial in treating of the divinity of the Father and the Son" (See document E in the Appendix, Baker). We do not have the sources that Eusebius must have had regarding the use of this word. Today, the only source is Origen who used the word in what seems the orthodox way (Johannes Quastren, "Patrology," Volume 2, p78). However, this phrase of Eusebius stands as a witness to the existence of wider use.
The bishops assembled at Nicea were careful to explain how they used the word, and what it meant. This is because it had been misused by Paul of Samosta. Regarding this unorthodox usage, St. Hilary and St. Basil say that it was said to be "unfit to describe the relation between the Father and the Son" at a council that met in Antioch (Ibid, p14). Apparently Paul of Samosta applied the word in a manner that implied division of nature, as several coins are from the same metal (Baker, p21).

The Role of Constantine

The controversy greatly agitated Emperor Constantine, and he sent a letter to Arius and Alexander in an attempt to persuade them to lay aside their differences. He wrote, "This contention has not arisen respecting any important command of the law, nor has any new opinion been introduced with regard to the worship of God; but you both entertain the same sentiments, so that you may join in one communion. It is thought to be not only indecorous, but altogether unlawful, that so numerous a people of God should be governed and directed at your pleasure, while you are thus emulously contending with each other, and quarrelling about small and very trifling matters."
It has been suggested that because Constantine referred to the issue as "trifling" that he did not really understand it. Strangely, it is recorded in a letter by Eusebius of Caesarea that the Emperor suggested the key word "homoousious" that appears in the Nicene Creed. He says the Emperor explained the term as well, showing its difference from the heretical usage by Paul of Samosta. It has been speculated that the Emperor made his suggestion at the prompting of Hosius of Cordova, the Emperor's advisor and a man who was persecuted under Maximian.

Constantine did play an important role at the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea reports that he played an key part in calming, convincing, and bringing all to agreement on contested points. The account of Eusebius fairly glows in regard to the Emperor, and he is portrayed as a key figure. It is nowhere suggested, however, that he was permitted to vote with the bishops nor that he used any form of force to obtain an outcome.

It may be that the eloquence and glory of the Emperor had sway with some, however it should be remembered that he did eventually (years after the Council) support the Arian party. A few years after the Council of Nicea, Arius discovered a new way to interpret the word "homoousius" that agreed with his doctrines. He then asked to be readmitted to communion, but the Church refused. Arius then appealed to the Emperor. Emperor Constantine's favorite sister, Constantia, on her deathbed, implored Constantine to support Arius and he did so. A date was set for the forcing of the Church to readmit Arius, but while he was waiting for Constantine to arrive Arius stopped to relive himself and his bowels burst and he died. (See Arians of the 4th Century, Chapter III, Section II by John Henry Newman)

It is hard to imagine how a man who had supposedly argued with eloquence for the Nicene Creed and who supposedly formulated the key phrase and explained it would simply abandon it for a mere submission to the words and not the meaning of the Creed. It is also hard to imagine how the account of Eusebius can be reconciled to the Emperor's apparent failure to grasp the issue apparent in his letter. It is also hard to imagine how a man who had been such a humble servant of the Church at Nicea would attempt to force the Church to accept his decisions at this later date. It seems reasonable on these grounds to suppose that Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a less than accurate account designed to give credit and flattery to the emperor.

Nor was Constantine the last emperor to side with the Arians. Athanasius writes concerning this in "The Monks' History of Arian Impiety' (AD 358) saying, "When did a decision of the Church receive its authority from the emperor?" and "never did the fathers seek the consent of the emperor for them [councilar decrees of the Church], nor did the emperor busy himself in the Church." He goes on to say that the heretics banded with the emperor. (See Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, by William Jurgens).

The Church was willing to accept the help of an emperor, to listen to what he had to say, but not to accept the rule of an emperor in matters of faith. However one describes the role of Constantine at the Council of Nicea, it must be remembered that the Creed of Nicea expressed what the great majority of bishops at the council found to be traditional, Biblical, and orthodox of the Christian faith, a faith in which they believed so firmly that they were willing to die for it.

Love, Connie

This is Sewell's article and what he actually said. I agree with him and if the book causes people to ask questions and seek answers then it serves a good purpose. But only if we look beyond the book for other answers and consider different views. In Christianity there are many paradoxes.

http://www.explorefaith.org/daVinci/1.html#sewell

The Da Vinci Code Phenomenon -- John W. Sewell

In November I led three conversations about issues raised in The Da Vinci Code. Months earlier, while browsing in a bookstore, the cover of the novel caught my eye, and because I have a long fascination with Leonardo (he is never called Da Vinci), I bought the book to read as a diversion. I found nothing new there, but it was a good page-turner. Then something interesting happened. People old and young, male and female, began to ask me could it be true, as the Code contends, that Jesus and Mary of Magdala were married and perhaps even had a child. This and other questions continued through the summer with such frequency that I realized that this book provided a teachable moment. I prepared to have a conversation about the book with interested members of the congregation I serve. A press release was sent to the local newspaper and I was asked for an interview. The resulting lead article once again indicated a high level of interest, but the turnout the night of our first gathering was completely unexpected: Six hundred people packed the pews.
What is it about Dan Brown's novel that enticed hundreds of people into church for a conversation? When questioned by a reporter about why I thought so many people were reading this book, I replied, "It is filled with delicious Christian heresies." Did Jesus marry Mary from Magdala and have genetic descendents? However intriguing the notion there seems to be no compelling evidence that Jesus married at all. The idea has prompted people to ask, "What am I to believe and why?" That is a very valid and enduring question. Toward the end of that first meeting a woman stood up and said, "We are here tonight because we are searching." One of the challenges for the searcher is the interpretation of discovery. What does a new idea or experience I have encountered mean? Is it true? If it is true how is it true? If it is true how does it apply to my life?

In an age of anxiety it is tempting to reach for certainty. If we can be certain then we can be safe. If we are safe then we are in control. However, certainty is illusionary. There is no certainty. In fact certainty is contradictory to faith. As Allen Jones, Dean of Grace Cathedral, San Francisco, puts it, "The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty." For me at least, notions that promise certainty are suspect. For Christians faith is the posture in the face of mystery. What God has revealed in Christ Jesus is a mystery. How could the birth of one man in one moment of history make a difference for all people at all times within history? Many have found this preposterous. And yet that is the core belief of classical Christianity.

What is there to find that is unique about the classical Christian understanding of Jesus? Over centuries Christians came to believe that Jesus is fully human and fully god. I believe that he is. That is an act of faith for me but increasingly I suspect that it is true because it is not the easy way out. Humanity likes the quick fix, the black or white option -clear cut and simple. Heresy, from the word, "to choose," is the tendency to choose a part of a notion and carry it to a logical conclusion, thereby ignoring the complexity and richness of the fuller reality. As Northrop Frye writes in his book Anatomy of Criticism, "...the full metaphorical statement...Christ is God and Man... is orthodox, and the Arian (the belief that Jesus was not god but the highest creation of God) and Docetic (Jesus only appeared to be god but was in fact only a virtual god) statements in terms of simile or likeness (are) condemned as heretical." The heresy is to not be willing to live with the tension of the paradox, but rather to want reality easily understandable.

The Da Vinci Code introduces many people to the fact that there were many exotic flowers in the early garden of Christianity. There are many reasons that they didn't become the dominant form of Christianity. In some cases they couldn't compete in the marketplace of ideas and in others they were eradicated by the political power of the state allied with the church. The church has not always covered itself in glory by mercy and justice.

All that notwithstanding I think the principle reason that classical Christianity endures to the present is the fact that the easy way was not the way chosen. The fact that the church chose the way of paradox and ambiguity as the most authentic way to live in the mystery of God revealed in Christ is the most telling reason for the enduring power of its life and message. Even in the church there is a desire for certainty. That is the human condition. The courage to face paradox is the most authentic expression of the Christian life. I believe that this is the life for which people unconsciously search. That is why I suspect that six hundred people showed up on a Wednesday night to talk about a novel.

Love, Connie

Hi Connie,

The reason I didn't respond to anything in particular that you said, is that we can argue Jesus' divinity here on this thread but neither you or I are going to prove it (it's a matter of opinion and belief) and the object of this thread was not to get into a debate about peoples beliefs. I was asking who read the book so that we could discuss it. Also there are many points you have made about the book and in reference to the book that are wrong because you haven't read it and don't know what it says...

I'm sorry if you felt I was rude, I just didn't want to argue point for point this and that... still don't, but because you feel I was being rude I will address a few of these things.

If you really want to argue different points or things said in the book at least read it first so that you know what you are talking about. Dan Brown does say that DaVinci was in a secret society, it's a major point in the book. He was one of the Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion (the secret society focused on in the book). This is the secret sect the author speaks of not Opus Dei, but according to the article I posted about them and others I have read while doing a search, there is a lot of secrecy involved with this sect of the Catholic Church.

As far as brainwashing goes... I didn't or don't see where Dan Brown is doing this. They are not his ideas that he is pushing about the symbology in Davinci's paintings, but those of historians, symbologists, ect that he interviewed while researching for the book.

The information he presents in his book about the Council of Nicea is the same as that in the Christianity series I have by A&E entitled "Christianity The first two thousand years", as well as what I have read through other sources. Also, you mention how the Gospal of St John says that he believed Jesus was divine, well the dead sea scrolls and other Gospels not included in the new testament say he was human and married to Mary Magdaline, so there we go with arguing or trying to argue the point. We could go on forever. I did not come on here to discuss this book so that I could argue Jesus's divinity... I brought this thread up to discuss the book amoung others who have read it.

I am done arguing about it. If you would like to discuss the book with us, please read it and then join us in discussion of it, I think you would actually like it.

Actually, Jesus' divinity is a matter of logic.
He is the only man that comes even close to meeting the minimum requirements.
All other symbolic heads of any other organization has originated from a man with at most a humanitarian opinion of how men should treat men, but none of them performed miracles in front of witnesses or cured people or raised anyone from their grave.
None of them made any personal promises that they can fulfill.
None of them were the result of prophecy, nor did they prophesize of future events that came to past.

So once again, if not Jesus then there is no man that can tell another man what is right or wrong, and might IS right. The week and lame and misfits of nature will just have to make a better fort, a better weapon, or accept the fact they are just a freak of nature and do the best they can to be happy and make due with the hand chance and circumstance has deal them. Free will choice, give and take, or fight and die.

But God knew what he was dealing with, hence he sent the comforter (The Holy Sprit) so that all that believe and live in accordance with that sprit would have a safety net.
There are millions coasting along on their faith, which is fine, but to try to learn and understand the reasons take a lot of studying, knowledge, and it not for everyone.
That's why it seems like a paradox, as without such understanding, the whole mess seems ridicules.

As far as religions go, who cares? Christianity is not a religion.

The book was discussed on the TV show very well. At each topic the reporter interviewed expects and in every case it was shown to be untrue or at most a dead end.
There was not one thing brought up on the TV show that was proved to be fact or truth, which would change the divinity of Jesus, prove that he had kids or was even married.
And as far as the RC church goes, well, it's everyone's favorite target. It is a big organization which does a lot of good for people but at the same time it has it's stubborn grandpa's that resist change and has been Aquarius preachers just like any other organization.

Churches of all religions are filled with sinners. That's what they are for.


One Man

Hi Connie,

I have never befored notice the arrow!!! it is amazing!! Now I can't stop noticing it every time I look at the sign!!!

With every religion, congregation and sect, the problem is not their phylosophy, ideas and teachings, the problem is the persons who get to it and with their actions, ruin everything that they stand for.

Here in Guatemala Opus Dei is one of the most prestigiuos Catholic Congregations. For what I have seen, I know the leaders, do have their special doctrine to manipulate their followers. They have special strategies to follow in order to convince people in what they want. They especially take great interest in atracting families who have money. In my case, my grandma was the target, I am sure that if it had been just me, I wouldn't have been able to enroll my kids in their school.

I know Monseñor de Ballaguer, its founder, never intended this to be. There are many proof of his intervention in true miracles. And there's no doubt that Opus dei do help many people in need.
But like you also stated, I prefer to keep my distance with them. They are obscure and mysteriuos.

Love,

Tish

Hi Kelly,

Now, getting back to the book, I decided to buy it, I found it on Overstock.com, 3 dollars cheaper than on Amazon.com. I looked around and thay have many good books and all are cheaper.
The family of my oldest son's girlfriend are devout followers of the Opus Dei, and she was forbidden to read the book, she did anyway. I'm glad she did, there is no better way to learn without seeing all sides of things.
We will find some things we agree with and there will be things we don't. But then we will know why we don't...

Love,

Tish

Hi Darwin, and girls,

I am very sorry that the books written by J.J. Benitez called "El Caballo de Troya" (The Troyan Horse)have not been translated to English. It is a series of 6 one thousand pages books that are very controversial. That I'd love to discuss here.

I really don't care if what this book says is true or not. The important thing is that I discovered Jesus on those books. The human but divine Jesus.

We will learn The Truth about Jesus the moment we are no longer on this Earth.
In the meantime all we can do is live our lives the best we can...

Love,

Tish

Hi Tish,

That's a bit of an emotional cop out.

I'm not much on fiction. The real stuff is plenty. I guess those that lack imagination need fiction. Mine works on all 8 all the time.

Interesting statement about discovering Jesus.
In the Bible is says words to the effect,
God will call you. And then the discovery will lead one to Jesus.
So in that regard you may have well been lead there.
What ever tool works?

I do care if the book is true or not. Because I don't like con men and hood winkers and liars. And I am sure as hell not doing to pay money for their imaginary ghost stories.
I prefer videos and pictures anyway. After all I am post 1948 and time and knowledge waits for no man (or woman.)

But what you say is true, although it's stating the obvious, and it as true as Suchi first said way up there. That's what the Holly Sprint is all about. Call it what ever you like. LG calls it White Light but many miss use it as some supernatural power separate from the will of God. Like a more better prayer when prayer is nothing more than tuning into the will of God, which is atoning to the here and now, so your intuition can perceive what will most likely occur and then have compassion (or joy) for the results. (But that's another thread.)

So excussssssse me for being curious and wanting to know the truth NOW!
It's not my fault I'm one of the wisest and smartest men on the planet.

Love,
Darwin

That's Tish!

Glad to hear that you got a good deal on it.

That series of books you mentioned sound good, too bad they are not available in English.

I like your statement about Jesus being Human and Divine, just like the rest of us... both human and divine pieces of God/The Universal Source.

hi veneo,

the book is interesting and keeps me on my toes about what is going to happen in the next chapter! i finished it in 2 or 3 days.

i liked how the story emphasized love in different forms. such as how the grandmother in the end said why bother telling the story of mary magdelene? people are doing so much good in the world based on an abstract of faith. for the love of the "single" jesus, people dedicate their lives serving the poor, donating money to charities, etc. why change the story?, according to her. she makes sense to me.

i also liked how the curator was a noble character. he kept his promises

connie,

i choose not to respond. i did read your notes and thought about them. there's not much i can say, other than i am at peace with all and anything anyone has to say these days. i choose to relax and let go. no more fighting, no more proving on my end. i just like to share and invite conversations. less is more is my motto these days.

amy

Quote:

---

All other symbolic heads of any other organization has originated from a man with at most a humanitarian opinion of how men should treat men, but none of them performed miracles in front of witnesses or cured people or raised anyone from their grave.
None of them made any personal promises that they can fulfill.
None of them were the result of prophecy, nor did they prophesize of future events that came to past.

---

Don't make such claims if your own knowledge of such things are limited. Won't go into details right now, since I'm getting late for work, but maybe on Sunday.

Hi Darwin,

How do you know it is TRUE? There is no way we can know if what we are believing is true. It is true as far as our intuition and state of consciuos of the moment tells us.
What I belived was true 20 years ago is not true for me now!!!!

Love,

Tish

Hi Kel,

Those books are great, I couldn't stop from reading when I got one. Two times I didn't slept all night, kept reading and reading until dawn. They were very difficult to get. Right now we are still waiting for book # 7.

The story is about an american who was dying and gave his written testimony to the author. In the testimony he tells about how the NASA sends him in a time machine ship to the time of Jesus to record and video tape Jesus story.

The accounts of those times are so extraordinary, he describes in such detail everything, that is unbelievable that he was not there.
Each book tells about different stages of Jesus life, but not in order, the first time he traveled was to the last week of Jesus, and the last book is about the 40 days Jesus goes alone.
I think I will go investigate on the net if there is another book and if they have been translated....

I'll tell you in a while,

Love,

Tish

P.S I am preparing a very long e-mail for you Kell and the girls, will send it tomorrow....