13017Re: Rex Mundi film,
- Mar 3, 2007
--- In email@example.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
> I think part of the issue in here may be that right now there is a
> movement in popular culture to place a "Gnostic" tag on things that
> question the "orthodox" church. On top of that, though you are right
> that some of the movies that are out now are getting people to think,
> some (like the Da Vinci Code) are actually spreading false and
> harmful info about Gnosticism. Because this forum tries particularly
> hard to keep the info about Gnosticism as technically accurate as we
> can, some of us may sometimes find ourselves combating the movie,
> book, poem, music, etc., in question (even if we may like them
> Imagine the number of people who initially joined this forum because
> they thought Gnostics believed that Jesus had children.
There seems to be a pervasive need in popular culture to commonly think in terms of historical figures when it comes to religious matters. And mostly I shrug my shoulders, except in some cases where misinformation is blatantly tagged to scholarship.
From an article today in The New York Times:
Early Christian Gospels suggesting that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus and a respected apostle in her own right, not a fallen woman, are the foundation of Gnostic studies by scholars like Elaine Pagels as well as of the plot of the Dan Brown best seller "The Da Vinci Code."
("Leaning on Theory, Colliding With Faith" by Alessandra Stanley)
I wonder how Elaine Pagels would really describe what she considers the "foundation," the FOUNDATION (yikes), of Gnostic studies and how she feels about being lumped in the same sentence with Dan Brown.
Robert Eisenman presents a scathing contrast:
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>