Summary: There are problems with the many blasphemies within “The Da Vince Code” and there is the burden of proof that goes unanswered by Dan Brown’s silly scholarship. Don’t be fooled!
Exposing The Da Vinci Code, Pt. 3
As we have learned over the last 2 sermons, there are problems with the many blasphemies within “The Da Vince Code” and there is the burden of proof that goes unanswered by Dan Brown’s silly scholarship. Barnamin Bailey, the great circus entertainer once said, “You may be able to fool some of the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time!” That’s an appropriate statement that describes just what’s happening with this book of fiction.
We live in an increasing hostile world towards the Bible, faith and miracles. The group that is waging this battle falls into the category called…“Philosophical Naturalism”. From the pulpit to the politician this thinking is becoming a rampant and dominant force!
This is a term that all Christians need to become familiar with.
Philosophical Naturalism = the idea that the physical reality falls within the boundaries of space and time, and that’s all there is. The supernatural doesn’t exist!
So the possibility of a resurrection is unthinkable and the power of God working in a person’s life is absurd!
Key: The scholarship that drives “The Da Vinci Code” is soaking in this philosophy!
Since the 20th century, there has been a deliberate attempt to give every other book of antiquity unquestionable validation. I see a double standard. I ask, don’t the Gospels deserve to be treated at face value, as generously as any other historical document?
A.N. Sherwin-White writes a generation ago in “Roman Society and Roman Law in The New testament”, “It is astonishing that while Greco- Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the 20th century study of the Gospel narratives, starting from no less promising material, has been taken so gloomy a turn.”
With that said, let’s turn the corner and head for the finish line. Now that we’ve exposed 4 false codes for what they are, let’s take into consideration the gospels. What other evidences do we have that help solidify our position that the N.T. as we have it is reliable?
For the sake of time let’s just look at Luke…
1. Who Was Luke?
A. The author of the third Gospel never uses his own name, but through careful comparison of Scripture with Scripture we find that he was "Luke, the beloved physician" (Col. 4:14).
B. He was a close traveling companion of Paul from his second missionary journey on. (Acts 16:10, "we")
C. He was a man with high academic training as a doctor, and faithfully ministered to Paul’s physical needs (II Tim. 4:9-16).
D. He was a historian of great intellect, writing in exquisite style and of Greek in both Luke and in the book of Acts.
E. Luke was not an eyewitness to the events recorded in his Gospel.
F. Most think that Luke wrote this book before Paul was martyred in Rome about 65 A.D.
In verse 4:
“Certainty” = this is a rich word that was used in very seriously in classical Greek. Homer, the Greek philosopher and poet used this word in 900 B.C., which meant…“That which is immovable, steadfast, unshakable and unfailing.”
The word developed over the next 50 years to describe a technical legal term for money that was paid as an assurance that one would live up to his word. Modern day we would see this as a security deposit or the bond of one’s word.
“Instructed” = catechize; we get our word “catechism”
It’s possible that he was a recent convert to Christianity and he was about to be baptized, “New Believer’s Class”. Delivered from a pagan background!
2. What Did Luke Use For His Primary Source?
Eyewitnesses! Vs. 2
Notice in verse 3: “Having perfect understanding of all…”
Literally: “having traced out all things from their source.”
· Luke tells us that he researched his facts before he penned them. He did not just decide to make up a bunch of stuff. He investigated what he wrote.
· It’s one thing to write something, it is another to research the facts. Journalism seems to fall a little short on that one.
· It is possible that when Paul was in prison at Caesarea, Luke had 2 years time to be able to meet many of these eyewitnesses and get his records correct and then be led by the Holy Spirit to write a masterpiece!
Luke says that the sources that he used were those who were eyewitnesses. In a court of law, we do not accept hearsay evidence. The most accepted form of evidence is from an eyewitness.
Get this: If you have primary source information, then once that information is compiled together then what do you have – a “Primary Source Document”.