13018Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Rex Mundi film,
- Mar 3, 2007Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman.
> --- 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
> > personally).
> > Imagine the number of people who initially joined this forum because
> > they thought Gnostics believed that Jesus had children.
> > PMCV
> 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 >>