I wrote a paper on the Da Vinci Code for school. What do you guys think?

In 2005-06 interest about early Christian history and the authenticity of the Bible was sparked due to Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”. The problem with this fictional story is its poor historical accuracy which hurls insults at the very core of Christianity. The misrepresentation of information along with the seeker’s acceptance of fiction as truth leads to a dangerous cocktail. Although with the author’s denial, “The Da Vinci Code” tries to rewrite history by offering fallacy as fact, deceiving those ready to accept lies as truth to by-pass performing any research of their own.
   A historically old dispute still alive today is the debate of who exactly is Jesus Christ? When presented with this question many of the perplexed citizens of Caesarea Phillipi would have answered, John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets (Holy Bible: New International Version). “The Da Vinci Code” is not at all different from the citizens who were unable to grasp the divine nature of Christ himself. In the lack of comprehension of Jesus not only being fully man, but also fully God, “ The Da Vinci Code” makes an absurd declaration that Christ only gained his divine nature after being voted as such by the Council of Nicea; in a twisted plot to give a great man and prophet exultation above what he deserves. The problem with this statement is that scripture has been calling Jesus “God” long before the Council’s debate ("A Biblical Response.").
   In the Bible Jesus is declared God. In ancient manuscripts Jesus is called “God” (theos) seven times in the New Testament and “Lord” (kyrios) in divine sense numerous times ("A Biblical Response."). While it is true that kyrios could just be giving someone honor, this term in the Greek translation of the Old Testament became the preferred substitution for “Jahweh”, God’s holy name. While the Romans were using kyrios to give honor to their emperor, the Jews rebuked this because only God is to be called kyrios (Hansen, “Breaking the Da Vinci Code”). With this knowledge of terminology it is hard to imagine such a discussion should have ever been brought up at the Council of Nicea.
   So what really happened at the Council of Nicea? Was it really a voting of majority of hands that turned Jesus into the “Creator of the Universe” as Brown exclaims, or is that statement a pretty poor summary? In 323 AD the newly Christian converted Constantine defeated Emperor Licinius thus ending persecutions against the Christian Church. This peace was short lived when soon after one of their pastors, Arius, proposed that since the Father begot the Son; the Son must have had a beginning and a time in which he had not existed. Because of this proposal by Arius, Emperor Constantine called bishops from around the world to discuss Arius’s claims. There they were, 300 scripturally knowledgeable intellects knowing full well what the Greek terminology of the Bible meant; stood waiting to hear what idiotic idea would come from Arius’s mouth. Upon opening his mouth Arius, along with his ideas of whether or not Jesus was once created, immediately was rejected and his papers which contained such crazy thoughts were torn into pieces (Brandt, “The Council of Nicea”). Then the council wrote a creed to state their beliefs. Upon signing, originally 17 of the 300 bishops would not agree to sign largely because of the word “homoousias”, meaning “of one substance”, was not used in scripture. Of those 17, all but 3 were later convinced to sign (Hansen, “Breaking the Da Vinci Code”). Thus the true argument at Nicea is not whether or not so much Jesus is God himself, as Brown explains, but rather a dispute over a word that while not used in scripture, still sums up the core of Christian beliefs and the point scripture is getting across. With information vital it is easy to see why the early Christian church was careful in validating the credibility of the gospels themselves.
   Some so called gospels that were found were never put into the Bible. Brown claims that Constantine had the gospels omitted from the Bible that made Jesus have human traits, while keeping those that made him seem god-like ("A Biblical Response."). Why were some of the gospels found not included in the Bible? The truth is no individual or group decided what was going to be in the New Testament. ”The church recognized the canon (the English translation of Hebrew and Greek words meaning “a rule” or “measuring rod”) of Scripture as inspired by God rather than creating the canon. ("A Biblical Response.")” While deciding the credibility of the gospels the early church came up with curtain criteria to decide whether or not the book was considered to be canonical. The book must have legitimate connection with an apostle, have widespread acceptance by Christians from around the globe, must correlate with the truth, and edify. The many “gospels” found that were omitted from the Bible, were found to be Gnostic and did not fit these criteria.
From the Gnostic sects came the Gnostic Books. The Gnostics were a group that claimed to have secret knowledge of salvation. “Gnostics denied the incarnation, death, atonement, and literal resurrection of Jesus. Since the Gnostic Jesus is not incarnate, he actually is less human than the Jesus of the biblical Gospels. These gospels do not portray an alternate Christianity, as Brown and others charge, but a religious approach opposed to Christianity. ("A Biblical Response.")” Still other gospels written were not accepted because they were not written in a time frame that the apostle that allegedly had written them was alive. Gnostics put their own spin on history. It is imperative that one does not fall victim to their web of lies and hearsay.
   “The Da Vinci Code” claims that the Gnostic Gospels have a reoccurring theme; Jesus and Mary Magdalene are married. In actuality looking at all of these pseudo-Christian writings none of them say anything or hint anything of a marriage between Jesus and Mary. One might say that there is proof in the Gospel of Mary when the Gnostics wrote: “Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of women.” Yet another long stretch of proof is when in the Gospel of Phillip it states, “And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. (Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts)” Now if Jesus had been married to Mary then the disciples would not have taken offense to any form of affection that he had for her, thus killing any thought of a possible marriage. These two examples are the closest things that could ever come to suggesting that Jesus and Mary were ever married. As one can see, one has to be very creative to even make this out to be a suggestion of such a thing. This proves that the Gnostics, with all of their creative spin they put on Christianity, were still not creative enough to think of this claim. While reading in the Bible, one will be even more disappointed when looking for any extra relationship between Mary and Jesus. There simply is no hint of any kind of relationship outside of discipleship that Mary Magdalene holds with Jesus.
   What can one find in the Bible about Jesus’ martial status? The answer would be none which is told outright. Throughout the Bible there is no mention of a wife. When ever Jesus’ family is mentioned, there is reference to his mother, brothers and sister but never a wife. One might argue that since the apostles called Jesus ‘rabbi’ that one might arrive at the conclusion that since it is Jewish custom that a rabbi is married that Jesus would follow suit. In actuality Jesus is not technically a rabbi. The apostles called him such to say that he is their teacher. “The Jews would ask Jesus ‘by what authority’ he did certain things because he did not hold any kind of Jewish office. (Bock, Was Jesus Married?)” Another such example to disprove Jesus was ever married is 1 Corinthians 7:1-7. In these verses Paul talks about being ‘eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom’. The apostle wrote that it is better to remain unmarried because the married person worries about the affairs of the world and would be more focused on their spouse, than serving the kingdom of God. Thus this passage fits Jesus to a tea, because of his mind set of getting out the gospel and doing his work appointed to him by his Father.
   “The Da Vinci Code” makes many false claims as one can see. It tries to rewrite history to the deception of the reader. Jesus’ life, ministry and resurrection are laid out for all to see in the Bible. There is no deception as Brown wants readers to think. Jesus was and still is the same person and God that he has always been. No twisted church plot or a show of hands has ever changed his magnificent character. Brown and many others want to rob Jesus’ of his character and make him less then he is; to do this the only way possible is to lie about the facts. Many people take these lies as fact simply because they are not willing to do the research themselves.