Polonia Sacra, 2008, R. 12 (30), Nr 23 (67)

Stały URI dla kolekcjihttps://theo-logos.pl/handle/123456789/2806

Przeglądaj

Przeglądaj Polonia Sacra, 2008, R. 12 (30), Nr 23 (67) wg Autor "Jelonek, Tomasz"

Wpisz kilka pierwszych liter i kliknij przycisk przeglądania
Teraz wyświetlane 1 - 1 z 1
  • Miniatura
    Pozycja
    Fałszowanie obrazu Jezusa i Kościoła
    Jelonek, Tomasz (Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej w Krakowie, 2008)
    In our times false pictures of Christ appear abundantly. One of the wellknown among them was a false picture of Christ popularized by Dan Brown in his famous book „The Da Vinci Code”, in which true facts and biased fabrications are woven into one cohesive story used to propagate a false picture of Christ and Christianity. Such propagandists regard the canon Gospels as documents which were purposefully falsified by the Church. They try to show that the true information about Jesus can be found in other documents from the times, which were rejected by the Church, and often hid as they allegedly contain the true picture of Jesus, but do not agree with the doctrine that originated in the Church. These are Apocrypha and documents recently discovered in archaeological finds. For example, there is a book written by two journalists Michał Baigent and Ryszard Leigh, who follow the opinions of Professor Robert Eisenman. The book is entitled „Zwoje znad Morza Martwego. Historia pewnego oszustwa” (Dead Sea Scrolls. A Story of a Certain Deception), and was actively promoted and became a bestseller generously spreading the grains of falsehood. This paper presents the opinions propagated in the above mentioned book and tries to take an attitude towards it, supplementing the picture of distortions in the picture of Jesus with examples from other such books, equally arbitrary, based on a priori premises which manipulate accessible biblical and extra-biblical sources. These books have long bibliographies, which may include excellent works of Biblicists, historians, and others. Nevertheless, just like the sources themselves, these works cannot speak the language of truth as they have been muzzled with arbitrary limitations. The truth for these authors is not what they study, but an assumption they made and must prove, even though the sources and scholarly aids say something totally different.