Was there a Da Vinci Conspiracy?

http://y-jesus.com/wwrj/2-da-vinci-conspiracy/1

The Da Vinci Code is not to be ignored as a fictional plot. Its premise, that Jesus Christ has been reinvented for political purposes, attacks the very foundation of Christianity. Its author, Dan Brown, has stated on national TV that, even though the plot is fictional, he believes its account of Jesus’ identity is true. So what is the truth? Let’s take a look.

· Did Jesus have a secret marriage with Mary Magdalene?

· Was Jesus’ divinity invented by Constantine and the church?

· Were the original records of Jesus destroyed?

· Do recently discovered manuscripts tell the truth about Jesus?

Has a gigantic conspiracy resulted in the reinvention of Jesus? According to the book and movie, The Da Vinci Code, that is exactly what happened. Several of the book’s assertions regarding Jesus smack of conspiracy. For example, the book states:

“Nobody is saying Christ was a fraud, or denying that He walked the earth and inspired millions to better lives. All we are saying is that Constantine took advantage of Christ’s substantial influence and importance. And in doing so, he shaped the face of Christianity as we know it today.”[1]

Could this shocking assertion from Dan Brown’s best-selling book be true? Or is the premise behind it just the stuff of a good conspiracy novel–on a par with a belief that aliens crash-landed at Roswell, New Mexico, or that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas when JFK was assassinated?

Either way, the story is compelling. No wonder Brown’s book has become one of the best-selling stories of the decade.



The Da Vinci Code begins with the murder of a French museum curator named Jacques Sauniere. A scholarly Harvard professor and a beautiful French cryptologist are commissioned to decipher a message left by the curator before his death. The message turns out to reveal the most profound conspiracy in the history of humankind: a cover-up of the true message of Jesus Christ by a secret arm of the Roman Catholic Church called Opus Dei.

Before his death, the curator had evidence that could disprove the deity of Christ. Although (according to the plot) the church tried for centuries to suppress the evidence, great thinkers and artists have planted clues everywhere: in paintings such as the Mona Lisa and Last Supper by da Vinci, in the architecture of cathedrals, even in Disney cartoons. The book’s main claims are these:

· The Roman emperor Constantine conspired to deify Jesus Christ.

· Constantine personally selected the books of the New Testament.

· The Gnostic gospels were banned by men to suppress women.

· Jesus and Mary Magdalene were secretly married and had a child.

· Thousands of secret documents disprove key points of Christianity.

Brown reveals his conspiracy through the book’s fictional expert, British royal historian Sir Leigh Teabing. Presented as a wise old scholar, Teabing reveals to cryptologist Sophie Neveu that at the Council of Nicaea in a.d. 325 “many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon,” including the divinity of Jesus.

“Until that moment in history,” he says, “Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.”

Neveu is shocked. “Not the Son of God?” she asks.

Teabing explains: “Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.”

“Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?”

“A relatively close vote at that,” Teabing tells the stunned cryptologist.[2]

So, according to Teabing, Jesus was not regarded as God until the Council of Nicaea in a.d. 325, when the real records of Jesus were allegedly banned and destroyed. Thus, according to the theory, the entire foundation of Christianity rests upon a lie.

The Da Vinci Code has sold its story well, drawing comments from readers such as “If it were not true it could not have been published!” Another said he would “never set foot in a church again.” A reviewer of the book praised it for its “impeccable research.”[3] Pretty convincing for a fictional work.

Let’s accept for the moment that Teabing’s proposal might be true. Why, in that case, would the Council of Nicaea decide to promote Jesus to Godhood?

“It was all about power,” Teabing continues. “Christ as Messiah was critical to the functioning of Church and state. Many scholars claim that the early Church literally stole Jesus from His original followers, hijacking His human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand their own power.”[4]

In many ways, The Da Vinci Code is the ultimate conspiracy theory. If Brown’s assertions are correct, then we have been lied to—by the church, by history, and by the Bible. Perhaps even by those we trust most: our parents or teachers. And it was all for the sake of a power grab.

Although The Da Vinci Code is fictional, it does base much of its premise upon actual events (the Council of Nicaea), actual people (Constantine and Arius), and actual documents (the Gnostic gospels). If we are to get to the bottom of the conspiracy, our project must be to address Brown’s accusations and separate fact from fiction.


Constantine And Christianity

In the centuries prior to Constantine’s reign over the Roman Empire, Christians had been severely persecuted. But then, while entrenched in warfare, Constantine reported to have seen a bright image of a cross in the sky inscribed with the words “Conquer by this.” He marched into battle under the sign of the cross and took control of the empire.

Constantine’s apparent conversion to Christianity was a watershed in church history. Rome became a Christian empire. For the first time in nearly 300 years it was relatively safe, and even cool, to be a Christian.

No longer were Christians persecuted for their faith. Constantine then sought to unify his Eastern and Western Empires, which had been badly divided by schisms, sects, and cults, centering mostly around the issue of Jesus Christ’s identity.

These are some of the kernels of truth in The Da Vinci Code, and kernels of truth are a prerequisite for any successful conspiracy theory. But the book’s plot turns Constantine into a conspirator. So let’s address a key question raised by Brown’s theory: did Constantine invent the Christian doctrine of Jesus’ divinity?


Deifying Jesus

To answer Brown’s accusation, we must first determine what Christians in general believed before Constantine ever convened the council at Nicaea.

Christians had been worshiping Jesus as God since the first century. But in the fourth century, a church leader from the east, Arius, launched a campaign to defend God’s oneness. He taught that Jesus was a specially created being, higher than the angels, but not God. Athanasius and most church leaders, on the other hand, were convinced that Jesus was God in the flesh.

Constantine wanted to settle the dispute, hoping to bring peace to his empire, uniting the east and west divisions. Thus, in 325 A.D., he convened more than 300 bishops at Nicaea (now part of Turkey) from throughout the Christian world. The crucial question is, did the early church think Jesus was the Creator or merely a creation—Son of God or son of a carpenter? So, what did the apostles teach about Jesus? From their very first recorded statements, they regarded him as God. About 30 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul wrote the Philippians that Jesus was God in human form (Philippians 2:6-7, NLT). And John, a close eye-witness, confirms Jesus’ divinity in the following passage:

In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God. He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn’t make. Life itself was in him..So the Word became human and lived here on earth among us (John 1: 1-4, 14, NLT).

This passage from John 1, has been discovered in an ancient manuscript, and it is carbon-dated at 175-225 A.D. Thus Jesus was clearly spoken of as God over a hundred years before Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea. We now see that forensic manuscript evidence contradicts The Da Vinci Code’s claim that Jesus’ divinity was a fourth century invention. But what does history tell us about the Council of Nicaea? Brown asserts in his book, through Teabing, that the majority of bishops at Nicaea overruled Arius’s belief that Jesus was a “mortal prophet” and adopted the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity by a “relatively close vote.” True or false?

In reality, the vote was a landslide: only two of the 318 bishops dissented. Whereas Arius believed that the Father alone was God, and that Jesus was His supreme creation, the council concluded that Jesus and the Father were of the same divine essence.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were deemed to be distinct, coexistent, coeternal Persons, but one God. This doctrine of one God in three Persons became known as the Nicene Creed, and is the central core of the Christian Faith. Now, it is true that Arius was persuasive and had considerable influence. The landslide vote came after considerable debate. But in the end the council overwhelmingly declared Arius to be a heretic, since his teaching contradicted what the apostles had taught about Jesus’ divinity.

History also confirms that Jesus had publicly condoned the worship he received from his disciples. And, as we have seen, Paul and other apostles clearly taught that Jesus is God and is worthy of worship.

From the first days of the Christian church, Jesus was regarded as far more than a mere man, and most of his followers worshiped him as Lord-the Creator of the universe. So, how could Constantine have invented the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity if the church had regarded Jesus as God for more than 200 years? The Da Vinci Code doesn’t address this question.


Firing On The Canon

The Da Vinci Code also states that Constantine suppressed all documents about Jesus other than those found in our current New Testament canon (recognized by the church as authentic eyewitness reports of the apostles). It further asserts that the New Testament accounts were altered by Constantine and the bishops to reinvent Jesus. Another key element of The Da Vinci Code conspiracy is that the four New Testament Gospels were cherry-picked from a total of “more than 80 gospels,” most of which were supposedly suppressed by Constantine.[5]

There are two central issues here, and we need to address both. The first is whether Constantine altered or biased the selection of the New Testament books. The second is whether he barred documents that should have been included in the Bible.

Regarding the first issue, letters and documents written by second century church leaders and heretics alike confirm the wide usage of the New Testament books. Nearly 200 years before Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea, the heretic Marcion listed 11 of the 27 New Testament books as being the authentic writings of the apostles.

And about the same time, another heretic, Valentinus, alludes to a wide variety of New Testament themes and passages. Since these two heretics were opponents of the early church leadership, they were not writing just what the bishops wanted. Yet, like the early church, they still referred to the same New Testament books we read today.

So, if the New Testament was already widely in use 200 years before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, how could the emperor have invented or altered it? By that time the church was widespread and encompassed hundreds of thousands if not millions of believers, all of whom were familiar with the New Testament accounts.

In his book The Da Vinci Deception, an analysis of The Da Vinci Code, Dr. Erwin Lutzer remarks,

“Constantine did not decide which books would be in the canon; indeed, the topic of the canon did not even come up at the Council of Nicaea. By that time the early church was reading a canon of books it had determined was the Word of God two hundred years earlier.”[6]

Although the official canon was still years from being finalized, the New Testament of today was deemed authentic more than two centuries before Nicaea.



This brings us to our second issue; why were these mysterious Gnostic gospels destroyed and excluded from the New Testament? In the book, Teabing asserts that the Gnostic writings were eliminated from 50 authorized Bibles commissioned by Constantine at the council. He excitedly tells Neveu:

“Because Constantine upgraded Jesus’ status almost four centuries after Jesus’ death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. From this sprang the most profound moment in Christian history. … Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned.”[7]

Are these Gnostic writings the real history of Jesus Christ? Let’s take a deeper look to see if we can separate truth from fiction.



Secret “Knowers”

The Gnostic gospels are attributed to a group known as (big surprise here) the Gnostics. Their name comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “knowledge.” These people thought they had secret, special knowledge hidden from ordinary people.

Of the 52 writings, only five are actually listed as gospels. As we shall see, these so-called gospels are markedly different from the New Testament Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

As Christianity spread, the Gnostics mixed some doctrines and elements of Christianity into their beliefs, morphing Gnosticism into a counterfeit Christianity. Perhaps they did it to keep recruitment numbers up and make Jesus a poster child for their cause. However, for their system of thought to fit with Christianity, Jesus needed to be reinvented, stripped of both his humanity and his absolute deity.

In The Oxford History of Christianity John McManners wrote of the Gnostics’ mixture of Christian and mythical beliefs.

“Gnosticism was (and still is) a theosophy with many ingredients. Occultism and oriental mysticism became fused with astrology, magic. … They collected sayings of Jesus shaped to fit their own interpretation (as in the Gospel of Thomas), and offered their adherents an alternative or rival form of Christianity.”[8]


Early Critics

Contrary to Brown’s assertions, it was not Constantine who branded the Gnostic beliefs as heretical; it was the apostles themselves. A mild strain of the philosophy was already growing in the first century just decades after the death of Jesus. The apostles, in their teaching and writings, went to great lengths to condemn these beliefs as being opposed to the truth of Jesus, to whom they were eyewitnesses.

Check out, for example, what the apostle John wrote near the end of the first century:

“Who is the great liar? The one who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Such people are antichrists, for they have denied the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)

Following the apostles’ teaching, the early church leaders unanimously condemned the Gnostics as a cult. Church father Irenaeus, writing 140 years before the Council of Nicaea, confirmed that the Gnostics were condemned by the church as heretics. He also rejected their “gospels.” However, referring to the four New Testament Gospels, he said, “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.[9]

Christian theologian Origen wrote this in the early third century, more than a hundred years before Nicaea:

I know a certain gospel which is called “The Gospel according to Thomas” and a “Gospel according to Matthias,” and many others have we read—lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine they possess some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the church has recognized, which is that only four gospels should be accepted.[10]

There we have it in the words of a highly regarded early church leader. The Gnostics were recognized as a non-Christian cult well before the Council of Nicaea. But there’s more evidence calling into question claims made in The Da Vinci Code.



Who’s Sexist?

Brown suggests that one of the motives for Constantine’s alleged banning of the Gnostic writings was a desire to suppress women in the church. Ironically, it is the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas that demeans women. It concludes (supposedly quoting Peter) with this eye-popping statement: “Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life” [11]. Then Jesus allegedly tells Peter that he will make Mary into a male so that she may enter the kingdom of heaven. Read: women are inferior. With sentiments like that on display, it’s difficult to conceive of the Gnostic writings as being a battle cry for women’s liberation.

In stark contrast, the Jesus of the biblical Gospels always treated women with dignity and respect. Revolutionary verses like this one found within the New Testament have been foundational to attempts at raising women’s status:

“There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all Christians-you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28, NLT).


Mystery Authors

When it comes to the Gnostic gospels, just about every book carries the name of a New Testament character: the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Judas, and so on. (Sounds a little like roll call at a parochial school.) These are the books that conspiracy theories like The Da Vinci Code are based upon. But were they even written by their purported authors?

The Gnostic gospels are dated about 110 to 300 years after Christ, and no credible scholar believes any of them could have been written by their namesakes. In James M. Robinson’s comprehensive The Nag Hammadi Library, we learn that the Gnostic gospels were written by “largely unrelated and anonymous authors.”[12] Dr. Darrell L. Bock, professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote,

“The bulk of this material is a few generations removed from the foundations of the Christian faith, a vital point to remember when assessing the contents.”[13]

New Testament scholar Norman Geisler commented on two Gnostic writings, the Gospel of Peter and the Acts of John. (These Gnostic writings are not to be confused with the New Testament books written by John and Peter.):

“The Gnostic writings were not written by the apostles, but by men in the second century (and later) pretending to use apostolic authority to advance their own teachings. Today we call this fraud and forgery.”[14]

The Gnostic gospels are not historical accounts of Jesus’ life but instead are largely esoteric sayings, shrouded in mystery, leaving out historical details such as names, places, and events. This is in striking contrast to the New Testament Gospels, which contain innumerable historical facts about Jesus’ life, ministry, and words.


Mrs. Jesus

The juiciest part of the Da Vinci conspiracy is the assertion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a secret marriage that produced a child, perpetuating his bloodline. Furthermore, Mary Magdalene’s womb, carrying Jesus’ offspring, is presented in the book as the legendary Holy Grail, a secret closely held by a Catholic organization called the Priory of Sion. Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci were all cited as members.

Romance. Scandal. Intrigue. Great stuff for a conspiracy theory. But is it true? Let’s look at what scholars say.

A Newsweek magazine article, that summarized leading scholars’ opinions, concluded that the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were secretly married has no historical basis.[15] The proposal set forth in The Da Vinci Code is built primarily upon one solitary verse in the Gospel of Philip that indicates Jesus and Mary were companions. In the book, Teabing tries to build a case that the word for companion (koinonos) could mean spouse.[16] But Teabing’s theory is not accepted by scholars.

There is also a single verse in the Gospel of Philip that says Jesus kissed Mary. Greeting friends with a kiss was common in the first century, and had no sexual connotation. But even if The Da Vinci Code interpretation is correct, there is no other historical document to confirm its theory. And since the Gospel of Philip is a forged document written 150-220 years after Christ by an unknown author, its statement about Jesus isn’t historically reliable.

Perhaps the Gnostics felt the New Testament was a bit shy on romance and decided to sauce it up a little. Whatever the reason, this isolated and obscure verse written two centuries after Christ isn’t much to base a conspiracy theory upon. Interesting reading perhaps, but definitely not history.

As to the Holy Grail and the Priory of Sion, Brown’s fictional account again distorts history. The legendary Holy Grail was supposedly Jesus’ cup at his last supper, and had nothing to do with Mary Magdalene. And Leonardo da Vinci never could have known about the Priory of Sion, since it wasn’t founded until 1956, 437 years after his death. Again, interesting fiction, but phony history.



The “Secret” Documents

But what about Teabing’s disclosure that “thousands of secret documents” prove that Christianity is a hoax? Could this be true?

If there were such documents, scholars opposed to Christianity would have a field day with them. Fraudulent writings that were rejected by the early church for heretical views are not secret, having been known about for centuries. No surprise there. They have never been considered part of the authentic writings of the apostles.

And if Brown (Teabing) is referring to the apocryphal, or infancy Gospels, that cat is also out of the bag. They are not secret, nor do they disprove Christianity. New Testament scholar Raymond Brown has said of the Gnostic gospels,

“We learn not a single verifiable new fact about the historical Jesus’ ministry, and only a few new sayings that might possibly have been his.”[17]

Unlike the Gnostic gospels, whose authors are unknown and who were not eyewitnesses, the New Testament we have today has passed numerous tests for authenticity. (Click to read Jesus.doc) The contrast is devastating to those pushing conspiracy theories. New Testament historian F. F. Bruce wrote:

“There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.”[18]

New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger revealed why the Gospel of Thomas was not accepted by the early church:

“It is not right to say that the Gospel of Thomas was excluded by some fiat on the part of a council: the right way to put it is, the Gospel of Thomas excluded itself! It did not harmonize with other testimony about Jesus that early Christians accepted as trustworthy.”[19]


History’s Verdict

So, what are we to conclude regarding the various conspiracy theories about Jesus Christ? Karen King, professor of ecclesiastical history at Harvard, has written several books on the Gnostic gospels, including The Gospel of Mary of Magdala and What Is Gnosticism? King, though a strong advocate of Gnostic teaching, concluded, “These notions about the conspiracy theory … are all marginal ideas that have no historical basis.”[20]

In spite of the lack of historical evidence, conspiracy theories will still sell millions of books and set box office records. Scholars in related fields, some Christians and some with no faith at all, have disputed the claims of The Da Vinci Code. However, the easily swayed will still wonder; Could there be something to it after all?

Award-winning television journalist Frank Sesno asked a panel of historical scholars about the fascination people have with conspiracy theories. Professor Stanley Kutler from the University of Wisconsin replied, “We all love mysteries-but we love conspiracies more.”[21]



So, if you want to read a great conspiracy theory about Jesus, Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code, may be just the ticket for you. But if you want to read the true accounts of Jesus Christ, then Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John will get you back to what the eyewitnesses saw, heard, and wrote. Who would you rather believe?

Read More

Houve mesmo uma Conspiração Da Vinci?

http://y-jesus.org/portuguese/wwrj/2-conspiracao-da-vinci/10/

O Código Da Vinci não deve ser ignorado como enredo de ficção. Sua premissa, de que Jesus Cristo tenha sido reinventado com objetivos políticos, ataca as próprias bases do cristianismo. O autor, Dan Brown, declarou em rede nacional que, mesmo que o enredo seja ficção, ele acredita que suas considerações sobre a identidade de Jesus sejam verdadeiras. Então, o que é verdade? Vamos dar uma olhada.

• Jesus teve um casamento secreto com Maria Madalena?

• A divindade de Jesus foi inventada por Constantino e a Igreja?

• Os registros originais de Jesus foram destruídos?

• Manuscritos recentemente descobertos contam a verdade sobre Jesus?

Uma gigantesca conspiração resultou na reinvenção de Jesus? De acordo com o livro e filme O Código Da Vinci, isto é exatamente o que aconteceu. Muitas das afirmações do livro sobre Jesus sugerem conspiração. Por exemplo, o livro declara:

“Ninguém está dizendo que Cristo foi um trapaceiro, ou negando que viveu neste mundo e inspirou milhões de pessoas a terem uma vida melhor. Tudo o que dizemos é que Constantino se aproveitou das suas substanciais influência e importância. E, ao fazê-lo, modelou a face do cristianismo tal como hoje o conhecemos.”[1]

Será que esta surpreendente afirmação do livro mais vendido de Dan Brown é verdadeira? Ou será que a premissa por trás faz somente parte de um bom livro de conspiração—similar à crença de que alienígenas fizeram um pouso forçado em Roswell no Novo México ou que havia um segundo atirador em Grassy Knoll em Dallas quando JFK foi assassinado? De qualquer maneira, a história é bastante convincente. Não surpreende que o livro de Brown tenha se tornado uma das histórias mais vendidas da década.
A Conspiração de Jesus

O Código Da Vinci começa com o assassinato de um curador de museu francês chamado Jacques Sauniere. Um professor intelectual de Harvard e uma bela criptologista francesa são contratados para decifrar uma mensagem deixada pelo curador antes de sua morte. A mensagem acaba por revelar a mais profunda conspiração da história da humanidade: a mensagem verdadeira de Jesus Cristo sendo encoberta pelo braço secreto da Igreja Católica Romana chamado Opus Dei.

Antes de sua morte, o curador tinha evidência que poderia contestar a divindade de Cristo. Apesar (de acordo com o enredo) a Igreja ter tentado por séculos esconder as evidências, os grandes pensadores e artistas deixaram pistas por todos os lados: em pinturas como a Mona Lisa e A Última Ceia de Da Vinci, nas arquiteturas das catedrais e mesmo em desenhos da Disney. Os principais argumentos do livro são:

• O imperador romano Constantino conspirou para divinizar Jesus Cristo.

• Constantino selecionou pessoalmente os livros no Novo Testamento.

• Os Evangelhos Gnósticos foram banidos para subjugar as mulheres.

• Jesus e Maria Madalena casaram-se em segredo e tiveram um filho.

• Milhares de documentos secretos refutam pontos-chave do cristianismo.

Brown revela sua conspiração através do especialista fictício do livro, o historiador real britânico Sir Leigh Teabing. Apresentado como um senhor sábio e erudito, Teabing revela à criptologista Sophie Neveu que no Concílio de Niceia em 325 d.c. “muitos aspectos do cristianismo foram debatidos e votados”, incluindo a divindade de Jesus.

“Até aquele momento,” ele diz, “Jesus era visto por seus seguidores como um profeta mortal… um grande e poderoso homem, mas ainda um homem.”

Neveu fica chocada. “Não como filho de Deus?” ela pergunta.

Teabing explica: “A constituição de Jesus como ‘filho de Deus’ foi proposta e votada oficialmente no Concílio de Niceia.”

“Espere. Você está dizendo que a divindade de Jesus foi o resultado de uma votação?”

“E uma votação relativamente pequena,” Teabing conta à surpresa criptologista.[2]

Então, de acordo com Teabing, Jesus não era considerado Deus até o Concílio de Niceia em 325 d. c., quando os reais registros de Jesus teriam sido banidos ou destruídos. Desta maneira, de acordo com a teoria, toda a fundação do cristianismo baseia-se em uma mentira.

O Código Da Vinci vendeu muito bem sua história, tirando de seus leitores comentários como “se não fosse verdade não teria sido publicado!” Outro disse “nunca mais piso em uma igreja”. Um crítico do livro parabenizou-o por seu “impecável trabalho de pesquisa”.[3] Muito convincente para um trabalho de ficção.

Vamos aceitar por enquanto que a proposta de Teabing pode ser verdade. Por que, neste caso, o Concílio de Niceia decidiu promover Jesus à divindade?

“Foi tudo pelo poder,” continua Teabing. “A criação de Cristo como o Messias era fundamental para o funcionamento da Igreja e do Estado. Muitos intelectuais afirmam que a Igreja primitiva literalmente roubou Jesus de seus seguidores originais, desviando sua mensagem humana e envolvendo-a em uma aura impenetrável de divindade, usando-a para expandir seu próprio poder.”[4]

De muitas maneiras, O Código Da Vinci é a teoria da conspiração definitiva. Se as afirmações de Brown estão corretas, então sempre fomos cercados de mentiras—pela Igreja, pela História e pela Bíblia. E até mesmo pelos que mais confiamos: nossos pais ou professores. E tudo isso for pela tomada do poder.

Apesar de O Código Da Vinci ser uma obra de ficção, ele baseia muitos de suas premissas em eventos (o Concílio de Niceia), pessoas (Constantino e Ário) e documentos (os Evangelhos Gnósticos) reais. Se chegássemos ao fundo da conspiração, nosso objetivo deve ser separar os fatos da ficção nas denúncias de Brown.
Constantino e o Cristianismo

Nos séculos anteriores ao reinado de Constantino sobre o Império Romano, os cristãos foram arduamente perseguidos. Então, em meio a batalhas, Constantino relatou ter visto uma imagem brilhante de uma cruz no céu descrevendo as palavras “Por este sinal conquistarás”. Ele marchou para a batalha sob o sinal da cruz e tomou posse do império.

A aparente conversão de Constantino ao cristianismo foi um divisor de águas na história da Igreja. Roma tornou-se um império cristão. Pela primeira vez em quase 300 anos era considerado seguro, e mesmo bom, ser cristão.

Os cristãos não eram mais perseguidos por sua fé. Constantino buscou então unificar os Impérios Oriental e Ocidental, que tinham sido divididos por cismas, sectos e cultos, centralizando-se principalmente sobre a questão da identidade de Jesus Cristo.

Esses são alguns dos cernes de verdade do O Código Da Vinci, e cernes de verdade são uma condição para qualquer teoria da conspiração de sucesso. Porém, o enredo do livro transforma Constantino em um conspirador. Vamos abordar essa questão chave levantada na teoria de Brown: Constantino inventou a doutrina cristã da divindade de Jesus?
Endeusamento de Jesus

Para responder às acusações de Brown, precisamos primeiramente determinar o que os cristãos em geral acreditavam antes de Constantino conclamar Concílio em Niceia.

Os cristãos já idolatravam Jesus como Deus desde o primeiro século. Porém, no quarto século, um líder da igreja oriental, Ário, iniciou uma campanha para advogar sobre a unidade de Deus. Sua doutrina era de que Jesus era um ser especialmente criado, maior que os anjos, mas não era Deus. Atanásio e a maioria dos líderes da igreja, por outro lado, estavam convencidos de que Jesus era Deus em carne e osso.

Constantino queria resolver a disputa, desejando trazer paz ao império com a unificação das divisões oriental e ocidental. Desta maneira, em 325 d. c., ele conclamou mais de 300 bispos em Niceia (agora parte da Turquia) por todo o mundo cristão. A questão crucial é, a igreja primitiva pensava que Jesus era o Criador ou apenas uma criação—filho de Deus ou de um carpinteiro? Qual a doutrina dos apóstolos sobre Jesus? Desde os primeiros registros ele é considerado Deus. Após 30 anos depois da morte e ressurreição de Jesus, Paulo escreveu aos filipenses que Jesus era Deus em forma humana (Filipenses 2:6-7, NLT). E João, uma testemunha ocular, confirmou a divindade de Jesus na seguinte passagem:

No princípio era o Verbo. E o Verbo estava com Deus, e o Verbo era Deus. Todas as coisas foram feitas por ele. E sem ele nada do que foi feito se fez. Nele estava a vida. E o Verbo se fez carne, e habitou entre nós (João 1: 1-4, 14, NLT).

Esta passagem de João 1 foi descoberta em um manuscrito antigo e sua verificação de carbono é datada de 175 a 225 d. c. Desta maneira, Jesus foi chamado de Deus mais de cem anos antes de Constantino conclamar o Concílio de Niceia. Podemos ver agora que a evidência forense do manuscrito contradiz a declaração d’O Código Da Vinci de que a divindade de Jesus foi uma invenção do quarto século. Mas o que a História conta sobre o Concílio de Niceia? Brown afirma no livro, através de Teabing, que a maioria dos bispos ignorava a crença de Ário que Jesus era um “profeta mortal” e adotaram a doutrina da divindade de Jesus por uma “votação pequena”. Verdadeiro ou falso?

Na realidade, a votação foi uma maioria esmagadora: somente dois dos 318 bispos discordaram. Mesmo que Ário acreditasse que somente o Pai era Deus e que Jesus era sua criação suprema, o concílio concluiu que Jesus e o Pai possuíam a mesma essência divina.

Pai, filho e o espírito santo foram considerados entidades diferentes e coexistentes, mas um único Deus. A doutrina de um Deus em três entidades ficou conhecida como Credo Niceno, e é o núcleo central da fé cristã. É verdade que Ário foi convincente e que teve influência considerável. A votação esmagadora ocorreu após um debate considerável. Porém, no fim o concílio declarou esmagadoramente Ário como herege por seus ensinamentos contradizerem com as doutrinas dos apóstolos sobre a divindade de Jesus.

A história também confirma que Jesus tolerou publicamente a idolatria recebida de seus discípulos. E, como vimos, Paulo e outros apóstolos ensinavam claramente que Jesus era Deus e digno de idolatria.

Desde os primeiros dias da Igreja cristã, Jesus foi considerado muito mais do que um mero homem e a maioria dos seus seguidores o idolatrava como Senhor criador do universo. Então, como pode Constantino ter inventado a doutrina da divindade de Jesus se a igreja já o considerava como Deus por mais de 200 anos? O Código Da Vinci não aborda essa questão.
Atacando o Cânone

O Código Da Vinci também afirma que Constantino ocultou todos os documentos sobre Jesus, além dos encontrados no cânone do Novo Testamento (reconhecido pela igreja como os relatos do testemunho autêntico dos apóstolos). Ele declara também que os relatos do Novo Testamento foram alterados por Constantino e pelos bispos para reinventar Jesus. Outro elemento-chave da conspiração do O Código Da Vinci é que os quatro Evangelhos do Novo Testamento foram selecionados dentre um total de “mais de 80 evangelhos”, que em sua maioria foram escondidos por Constantino.[5]

Existem duas questões centrais aqui, e abordaremos ambas. A primeira é se Constantino alterou ou selecionou de maneira tendenciosa os livros do Novo Testamento. A segunda é se ele baniu documentos que deveriam ter sido incluídos na Bíblia.

Com relação à primeira questão, cartas e documentos escritos por líderes da igreja e hereges do século dois confirmam o amplo uso dos livros do Novo Testamento. Certa de 200 anos antes de Constantino conclamar o Concílio de Niceia, o herege Marcião listou 11 dos 27 livros do Novo Testamento como escritos autênticos dos apóstolos.

Por volta da mesma época, outro herege, Valentino, faz menção a uma ampla variedade de temas do Novo Testamento e suas passagens. Visto que esses dois hereges eram adversários da liderança da igreja primitiva, eles não estavam escrevendo somente o que os bispos queriam. Mesmo assim, como a igreja primitiva, eles mencionaram os mesmos livros do Novo Testamento que lemos hoje.

Assim, se o Novo Testamento já era amplamente usado 200 anos antes de Constantino e do Concílio de Niceia, como poderia o imperador tê-lo inventado ou alterado? Naquele tempo a igreja já havia se espalhado e abrangia centenas de milhares se não milhões de crentes, e todos conheciam os relatos do Novo Testamento.

No livro A fraude do Código Da Vinci, uma análise do O Código Da Vinci, o Dr. Erwin Lutzer comenta:

“Constantino não decidiu quais livros estariam no cânone; de fato, o tópico do cânone nem mesmo foi mencionado no Concílio de Niceia. Na época que a igreja primitiva lia um cânone de livros, eles já haviam sido determinados como a palavra de Deus anos antes”.[6]

Apesar do cânone oficial ainda levar anos para ser finalizado, o Novo Testamento de hoje foi considerado autêntico mais de dois anos antes de Niceia.

Isto nos leva à segunda questão, o porquê desses misteriosos evangelhos gnósticos terem sido destruídos e excluídos do Novo Testamento? No livro, Teabing afirma que os escritos Gnósticos foram eliminados das 50 Bíblias encomendadas por Constantino no concílio. Ele conta animadamente a Neveu:

“Devido ao fato de que a elevação do status de Jesus por Constantino se deu quase quatro séculos após a morte desse, já existiam milhares de documentos que contavam sua vida como homem mortal. Para reescrever os livros de história, Constantino sabia que precisaria de um golpe ousado. Disto surgiu um dos momentos mais profundos da história cristã. … Constantino encomendou e financiou uma nova Bíblia, que omitiu esses evangelhos que falavam dos traços humanos de Cristo e adornou os que o tornavam divino. Os primeiros evangelhos foram proscritos, recolhidos e queimados.”[7]

Seriam esses escritos gnósticos a real história de Jesus Cristo? Vamos olhar com mais detalhes para ver se conseguimos separar a verdade da ficção.
“Conhecedores” Secretos

Os evangelhos gnósticos foram atribuídos a um grupo conhecido como (para nossa surpresa) os Gnósticos. Seu nome vem da palavra grega gnosis que significa “conhecimento”. Essas pessoas pensavam ter conhecimentos secretos e especiais, ocultos das pessoas comuns.

Dos 52 escritos, apenas cinco foram realmente listados como evangelhos. Como veremos mais adiante, esses supostos evangelhos são claramente diferentes dos do Novo Testamento como Mateus, Marcos, Lucas e João.

Com a propagação do cristianismo, os Gnósticos combinaram algumas doutrinas e elementos do cristianismo com suas próprias crenças, transformando o Gnosticismo em uma simulação. Talvez tenham feito isto para aumentar o número de fiéis e tornar Jesus um garoto-propaganda para sua causa. Contudo, para que sua linha de pensamento fosse compatível com o cristianismo, Jesus precisava ser reinventado, retirando sua humanidade e sua divindade absoluta.

Em A História do Cristianismo de Oxford, John McManners escreveu sobre a mistura de cristianismo e crenças míticas dos gnósticos.

“O gnosticismo foi (e ainda é) uma teosofia com muitos ingredientes. Ocultismo e misticismo oriental combinam-se com astrologia e mágica.

Eles integram os ensinamentos de Jesus e acomodam-nos em sua própria interpretação (como no Evangelho de Tomás), oferecendo aos seus membros uma forma alternativa ou rival de cristianismo.”[8]
Primeiros Críticos

Ao contrário das afirmações de Brown, não foi Constantino que considerou as crenças gnósticas como heréticas, e sim os próprios apóstolos. Uma pequena linha filosófica já crescia no primeiro século, apenas décadas depois da morte de Jesus. Os apóstolos, em seus ensinamentos e escritos, condenaram fortemente essas crenças como opostas à verdade de Jesus, de quem foram testemunha.

Veja, por exemplo, o que o apóstolo João escreveu perto do fim do primeiro século:

“Quem é o mentiroso? Senão aquele que nega que Jesus é o Cristo? É o anticristo esse mesmo que nega o Pai e o Filho.” (1 João 2:22)

Seguindo os ensinamentos dos apóstolos, os líderes da igreja primitiva condenam unanimemente os gnósticos como um culto. O padre Ireneu, escrevendo 140 anos antes do Concílio de Niceia, confirmou que os gnósticos eram condenados pela igreja como hereges. Ele também rejeitou seus “evangelhos”. Entretanto, com relação aos quatro evangelhos do Novo Testamento, ele diz: “Não é possível que os evangelhos sejam em quantidade maior o menor do que são”.[9]

O teólogo cristão Orígenes escreveu no início do terceiro século mais de cem anos antes de Niceia:

Conheço um certo evangelho chamado “O Evangelho segundo Tomás” e um “Evangelho segundo Matias” e muitos outros que li, já que não devemos ser considerados de nenhuma maneira ignorante pelos que imaginam ter algum conhecimento sobre esses. Contudo, dentre todos esses aprovamos somente os reconhecidos pela igreja, que são os únicos quatro evangelhos que devem ser aceitos.[10]

Aqui temos as palavras de um líder da igreja altamente considerado. Os gnósticos foram reconhecidos como um culto não-cristão muito antes do Concílio de Niceia. Mas existem ainda mais evidências que respondem as questões feitas no O Código Da Vinci.
Quem é sexista?

Brown sugere que um dos motivos do suposto banimento dos escritos gnósticos por Constantino tenha sido o desejo de reprimir as mulheres na igreja. Ironicamente, é o Evangelho Gnóstico de Tomás que rebaixa as mulheres. Ele conclui (supostamente citando Pedro) com esta surpreendente declaração: “Deixe Maria ir para longe de nós, pois as mulheres não são dignas da vida” [11]. Depois Jesus supostamente diz a Pedro que transformará Maria em um homem para que ela possa entrar no reino dos céus. Leia: mulheres são inferiores. Com sentimentos como esse à mostra, é difícil conceber que os escritos gnósticos tenham sido um grito de guerra da liberação feminina.

Em forte contraste, o Jesus dos evangelhos bíblicos sempre tratou as mulheres com dignidade e respeito. Versos revolucionários como este encontrados no Novo Testamento foram fundamentais para as tentativas de elevação do status da mulher:

“Nisto não há judeu nem grego; não há servo nem livre; não há macho nem fêmea. Porque todos vós sois um em Cristo Jesus” (Gálatas 3:28, NLT).
Autores Misteriosos

Com relação aos evangelhos gnósticos, cada livro leva o nome de uma personagem do Novo Testamento: O Evangelho de Filipe, o Evangelho de Pedro, o Evangelho de Maria, o Evangelho de Judas e assim em diante. (Parece uma lista de chamada de escola.) São nesses livros que teorias da conspiração como O Código Da Vinci se baseiam. Mas será que eles foram mesmo escritos por seus supostos autores?

Os evangelhos gnósticos são datados de 110 a 300 anos depois de Cristo e nenhum acadêmico crível acredita que algum deles poderia ter sido escrito por seus homônimos. No abrangente A Biblioteca de Nag Hammadi de James M. Robinson, descobrimos que os evangelhos gnósticos foram escritos por “autores desconhecidos e independentes”.[12] Dr. Darrell L. Bock, professor de estudos do Novo Testamento no Seminário Teológico de Dallas, escreveu:

“A maior parte deste material está afastado por algumas gerações das bases da fé cristã, um ponto vital a se lembrar ao avaliar seu conteúdo.”[13]

O estudioso do Novo Testamento Norman Geisler comentou dois escritos gnósticos, o Evangelho de Pedro e os Atos de João. (Esses escritos gnósticos não devem ser confundidos com os livros do Novo Testamento escrito por João e Pedro):

“Os escritos gnósticos não foram escritos pelos apóstolos, mas por homens do século dois (ou posterior) com intenções de usar a autoridade apostólica para divulgar seus próprios ensinos. Nos dias de hoje chamamos isto de fraude e falsificação.”[14]

Os evangelhos gnósticos não são relatos históricos da vida de Jesus, mas sim declarações esotéricas, envoltas em mistério, que deixam de fora detalhes históricos como nomes, locais e eventos. Este é um contraste marcante com os evangelhos do Novo Testamento que contém diversos fatos históricos sobre a vida, ministério e palavras de Jesus.
Senhora Jesus

A melhor parte da conspiração Da Vinci é a afirmação de que Jesus e Maria Madalena casaram-se secretamente e tiveram um filho, perpetuando sua linhagem. Além disso, o ventre de Maria Madalena, carregando a prole de Jesus, é representado no livro como o lendário Santo Graal, um segredo mantido pela organização católica chamada o Priorado de Sião. Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo e Leonardo Da Vinci foram citados como seus membros.

Romance. Escândalo. Intriga. Ótimos para uma teoria da conspiração. Mas será que é verdade? Vejamos o que dizem os estudiosos.

Um artigo da revista Newsweek, que resumiu a opinião geral dos estudiosos, conclui que a teoria de que Jesus e Maria Madalena casaram-se secretamente não possui embasamento histórico.[15] A proposta colocada no O Código Da Vinci é construída sobre um único verso do Evangelho de Filipe que indica que Jesus e Maria eram companheiros. No livro, Teabring tenta construir a hipótese de que a palavra para companheiro (koimonos) poderia significar esposa. Porém, a teoria de Teabing não é aceita pelos estudiosos.

Há também um único verso do Evangelho de Filipe que menciona que Jesus beijou Maria. Saudar amigos com um beijo era comum no século um e não possuía nenhuma conotação sexual. Porém, mesmo se a interpretação de O Código Da Vinci estivesse correta, não existem documentos históricos que confirmem esta teoria. E visto que o Evangelho de Filipe é um documento forjado escrito de 150 a 220 anos depois de Cristo por um autor desconhecido, suas declarações sobre Jesus não são historicamente confiáveis.

Talvez os gnósticos sentiram que o Novo Testamento possuía pouco romance e decidiram apimentá-lo um pouco mais. Qualquer seja a razão, o verso obscuro e isolado escrito dois séculos depois de Cristo não é muito para se basear toda uma conspiração. Uma leitura interessante talvez, mas definitivamente não histórica.

Com o Santo Graal e o Priorado de Sião, o relato fictício de Brown mais uma vez distorce a história. O lendário Santo Graal foi supostamente a taça que Jesus usou na última ceia e não teve nenhuma relação com Maria Madalena. E Leonardo da Vinci nunca poderia ter conhecido o Priorado de Sião, visto que este só foi fundado em 1956, 437 anos após sua morte. Novamente, uma ficção interessante, mas historicamente inexato.
Os Documentos “Secretos”

Mas e sobre a declaração de Teabing que “milhares de documentos secretos” provam que o cristianismo é uma farsa? Será que é verdade?

Se houvesse tais documentos, os estudiosos que se opõem à igreja estariam de mãos cheias. Escritos fraudulentos que foram rejeitados pela igreja primitiva por suas visões hereges não eram secretos, sendo conhecidos por séculos. Isto não é nenhuma surpresa. Eles nunca foram considerados parte dos escritos autênticos dos apóstolos.

E se Brown (Teabing) está se referindo aos evangelhos apócrifos ou da infância, os problemas são mais uma vez revelados. Eles não são secretos, não provam nem refutam o cristianismo. O estudioso do Novo Testamento Raymond Brown comenta sobre os evangelhos gnósticos:

“Não conhecemos nenhum novo fato verificável sobre o ministério de Jesus, apenas algumas novas declarações que podem ter sido dele”.[18]

Diferente nos evangelhos gnósticos, cujos autores são desconhecidos e não foram testemunhas, o Novo Testamento que temos hoje passou por inúmeros testes de autenticidade. (Clique para ler Jesus.doc) O contraste é devastador para os que apoiam as teorias da conspiração. O historiador do Novo Testamento F. F. Bruce escreveu:

“Não há obra de literatura antiga no mundo que goza de tamanha riqueza de comprovação textual do que o Novo Testamento”.[19]

O estudioso do Novo Testamento Bruce Metzger revelou porque o Evangelho de Tomás não foi aceito pela igreja primitiva:

“Não é correto dizer que o Evangelho de Tomás foi excluído por alguma ordem por parte de um concílio: a maneira certa de dizer é que o Evangelho de Tomás excluiu a si mesmo! Ele não combina com os outros testemunhos sobre Jesus que os primeiros cristãos aceitaram como confiável”.[17]
Veredito Histórico

Assim, o que podemos concluir com relação às diversas teorias da conspiração sobre Jesus Cristo? Karen King, professor de história eclesiástica da Harvard, escreveu vários livros sobre os evangelhos gnósticos, incluindo o Evangelho de Maria de Magdala e O que é gnosticismo? King, embora seja um forte defensor dos ensinamentos gnósticos, conclui que “Essas noções sobre teoria da conspiração… são ideias marginais que não possuem embasamento histórico”.[20]

Apesar da falta de evidências históricas, as teorias da conspiração ainda vendem milhões de livros e atingem níveis recorde nas bilheterias. Estudiosos em campos relacionados, alguns cristãos e alguns sem nenhuma fé refutaram as declarações do O Código Da Vinci. Entretanto os que se deixam levar facilmente ainda se perguntam: será que é mesmo verdade?

O jornalista de televisão ganhador de prêmios Frank Sesno perguntou a um júri de estudiosos sobre a fascinação que as pessoas têm com teorias da conspiração. O professor Stanley Kutler da Universidade de Wisconsin respondeu que “todos amamos mistérios, mas amamos muito mais as conspirações”.[21]

Então, se quiser ler sobre uma grande teoria da conspiração sobre Jesus, a novela de Dan Brown O Código Da Vinci pode ser o que você procura. Mas se quiser ler sobre os relatos verdadeiros de Jesus Cristo, então Mateus, Marcos, Lucas e João o levarão ao que as testemunhas viram, ouviram e escreveram. No que você prefere acreditar?

http://y-jesus.org/portuguese/wwrj/2-conspiracao-da-vinci/10/

Read More

Fé e Circunstâncias

M. Fontaine

As pessoas geralmente avaliam uma situação de maneiras bem diferentes umas das outras, vão de pessimista a otimista demais, e todos os graus intermediários. Em muitas situações, realmente ajuda ter bastante fé, atitude positiva e otimismo. Falando realisticamente, todos nós temos que lidar constantemente com problemas, e se não os abordarmos com fé e perseverança, é fácil ser puxado para baixo e para uma atitude negativa, principalmente quando a situação é difícil ou o problema é grave.

Nós vamos afundar, a menos que tenhamos uma atitude de fé e tentemos ver o positivo e as vitórias que o Senhor pode nos dar mesmo em uma aparente derrota. Não é bom espiritualmente deixar os problemas da vida sobrepujarem nossa fé, nos desencorajarem e puxarem para baixo.

Algumas pessoas têm fé e um otimismo natural que as ajuda a reagir bem em uma situação positive. Mas quando rodeadas por dificuldades ou situações aparentemente impossível, acabam sendo arrastadas para baixo. Se a pessoa tem uma atitude ou ímpeto negativo ou pessimista, as circunstâncias negativas podem dominar e colocá-las em um canal negativo.

A pessoa que sempre teve tendência a uma atitude negativa ou pessimista não consegue ganhar uma vitória rápida e de repente, da noite para o dia, se tornar feliz e cheia de fé. Se ela é assim por natureza, se ela sempre agiu dessa forma, essas tendências estão bem arraigadas. Leva tempo para superar tais atitudes.

A meta do cristão maduro, é não se deixar arrastar pelas circunstâncias ou problemas dos outros, mas manifestar fé e ajudar a influenciar positivamente as pessoas por meio da sua fé. Ter o coração cheio de fé o que nos impede de ficar sobrecarregados e preocupados com problemas alheios ou os nossos próprios. Devemos ter fé de verdade para sairmos do lamaçal ou abismo de situações negativas e ajudar a puxar outros para fora também.

Essa é uma outra característica da pessoa cheia de fé. Ela não se preocupa muito com as coisas. Algumas pessoas aparentam uma confiança constante no Senhor. Raramente ficam preocupadas com as coisas. Acreditam que tudo vai dar certo no final — e geralmente é o que acontece! Porque esse é o princípio da fé. “Se tu podes crer, tudo é possível ao que crê.”[1]

Eu acho que as pessoas que continuamente lidam com problemas, como é o caso de missionários que trabalham com a população carente em países subdesenvolvidos, precisam ser fortes na fé. Aqueles que precisam fazer o trabalho sujo, por assim dizer, resolvendo problemas, dificuldades e cuidando emergências, têm que ser bastante estáveis.

Não podem se deixar afetar muito pelas circunstâncias. A menos que se tenha uma forte fé e se apoie na força do Senhor, não são todos que aguentam um bombardeio de circunstâncias negativas e problemas sem serem afetados negativamente. Ara lidar com problemas é preciso pessoas de atitude positiva, inspiradas e cheias de fé.

Se mostrar que tem fé que as pessoas conseguem lidar com seus próprios problemas, ou que o Senhor vai cuidar delas e ajudá-las a superar o desencorajamento, isso provavelmente ajudará mais do que qualquer outra coisa. As pessoas têm a responsabilidade de tentar resolver seus problemas pessoais por conta própria, com a ajudar do Senhor, mas precisam de encorajamento, e muitas vezes só precisam reanimar a sua fé para acreditar que podem se levantar e tentar mais uma vez.[2]




Parte do otimismo é se manter focado no positivo e sempre avançando. Passei por muitos momentos tenebrosos quando a minha fé na humanidade foi colocada à prova ao último grau, mas eu me recusei, eu não podia me desesperar e desistir. Essa atitude leva à derrota e à morte. ―Nelson Mandela



Vocês se dispuseram a uma difícil tarefa, mas, se perseverarem, alcançarão sucesso, além de encontrarem alegria na superação dos obstáculos. Lembrem-se que todo esforço em prol de uma meta louvável nunca é em vão. ―Helen Keller



Otimismo é uma estratégia para um futuro melhor. A menos que creia que é possível ter um futuro melhor, é pouco provável que tome uma atitude e assuma responsabilidade para concretizar tal visão.—Noam Chomsky


O Senhor é maior que nossas circunstâncias

Na vida de todos existe algo que poderia seriamente atrapalhar e até impedir a pessoa se ela permitisse que a puxasse para baixo sem se esforçar por superar. O maravilhoso é que o Senhor supriu uma maneira de superarmos tudo isso, e na verdade é o que Ele deseja para nós! O Seu auxílio está ao nosso dispor; as circunstâncias—passadas ou atuais—não precisam determinar a nossa vida.

Veja todos os homens na história que superaram obstáculos aparentemente insuperáveis para se tornarem grandiosos — pobreza, deficiência física, herança familiar pobre, etc. Eu tenho certeza que cada um de nós poderia dar exemplos de grandes homens e mulheres que poderiam facilmente ter ficado amargurados ou sentido avassalados por certas experiências ou situações vivenciadas, mas não ficaram! Eles simplesmente lutaram mais ferrenhamente para superar esses obstáculos, e isso os fortaleceu. Em vez de reclamarem que a vida lhes dera um “limão”, ou um mau negócio, eles fizeram uma limonada.

Por causa de suas deficiências, essas pessoas subiram ainda mais alto. Vejamos o exemplo de George Bernard Shaw. Extremamente tímido, mas decidido a superar a timidez, ele se forçou a falar em público, ingressou em grupos de debate e foi orador em reuniões públicas. Tudo isso ele fez para conseguir superar a sua dificuldade em falar em público. O seu ponto fraco eventualmente tornou-se o seu ponto forte, e ele se transformou em um orador perspicaz e autor de renome.

Algumas pessoas nasceram em famílias extremamente pobres, mas lutaram e conseguiram superar e alcançar algo na vida. Muitas vezes, foram justamente esses problemas os catalisadores para a empatia, compaixão dos pobres, e o esforço para melhorar suas vidas. Booker T. Washington, por exemplo, filho de escravos, trabalhou arduamente nas minas de carvão e de sal, mas se tornou um educador e posteriormente orador pela causa dos afro-americanos; e fundou uma escola para que outros pudessem ter uma vida melhor.

Muitas vezes, aqueles que enfrentam e superam dificuldades se tornam uma grande influência inspirando em outros coragem e fé para superarem suas próprias dificuldades. Aqueles que veem e ouvem falar das lutas e vitórias dessas pessoas percebem que é possível superar grandes obstáculos e situações aparentemente impossíveis, e triunfar mesmo diante de situações angustiantes. Suas vitórias nos servem de exemplo de que dificuldades não precisam nos dominar, mas que podemos nos elevar acima delas se tivermos a atitude certa.

Jerome K. Jerome foi um escritor britânico que ficou órfão de pai aos 12 anos; aos 14 precisou trabalhar para sustentar sua mãe e irmã. A vida dele ficou ainda mais difícil após a morte da mãe. Mas depois de exercer em diferentes tipos de atividades remuneradas, ele se tornou um escritor – não de contos tristes, mas um famoso humorista, autor de histórias muitos engraçadas para animar as pessoas. Sobre as dificuldades na juventude ele disse: “É com as lutas que conquistamos força, não com as vitórias.”

Faz-me lembrar da historia de um jovem com um grave problema de gagueira. Oraram por ele diversas vezes, mas o Senhor nunca o libertou. Esse jovem cristão acabou chegando à conclusão que, “o Senhor deve querer usar a minha gagueira para a Sua glória, porque quando dou testemunho as pessoas sentem pena de mim, então ouvem o que tenho a dizer!” Se por um lado ele não conseguiu superar o problema, por outro não se deixou dominar por ele. Não permitiu que o transformasse em uma pessoa introvertida, pelo contrário, aprendeu a tirar proveito disso e usar esse fato para a glória de Deus. Chegou a um ponto em que ele inclusive agradecia a Deus pela gagueira, pois conseguia ver os pontos positivos do seu problema.

Nós, que andamos por fé, com certeza não devemos nos deixar prender ou limitar emocional, mental ou espiritualmente pelas circunstâncias ou pelo nosso passado. Na verdade, o Senhor muitas vezes permite essas coisas para lutarmos até alcançarmos a vitória, pois quer que as dificuldades nos fortaleçam. Em vez de considerarmos os obstáculos, infortúnios ou experiências ruins um terrível revés ou deficiência, podemos usá-los para melhorar nossas vidas. Tudo isso pode servir de degraus para nós subirmos e avançarmos, não nos puxarem para baixo ou nos travar. Podemos usar essas situações para melhorar nossas vidas e a de outros.

Esse processo pode nos ensinar a lutar com a ajuda do Senhor e nos fortalecer. Sem problemas poderíamos nos acomodar ou sermos levados pela vida, uma atitude que geralmente não fortalece o caráter como acontece quando é preciso lutar para superar problemas. Talvez nem percebêssemos tudo de belo em nossas vidas que acontecesse como resultado do sofrimento, ou nem fizéssemos amigos de verdade entre aqueles que nos amparassem no nosso momento de necessidade. Não teríamos a mesma compaixão por outros que passassem pelas mesmas situações nem conseguiríamos “consolá-los com o consolo que somos consolados de Deus”[3], entender o que estivessem vivendo nem ajudá-los a superar.

Deus usa nossas provações e dificuldades para nos ensinar paciência, confiança e fé no Senhor, e para nos ajudar a ter mais misericórdia de outros.[4]


Portanto, também nós, uma vez que estamos rodeados por tão grande nuvem de testemunhas, livremo-nos de tudo o que nos atrapalha e do pecado que nos envolve, e corramos com perseverança a corrida que nos é proposta, tendo os olhos fitos em Jesus, autor e consumador da nossa fé. Ele, pela alegria que lhe fora proposta, suportou a cruz, desprezando a vergonha, e assentou-se à direita do trono de Deus. Pensem bem naquele que suportou tal oposição dos pecadores contra si mesmo, para que vocês não se cansem nem se desanimem.—Hebreus 12:1–3 NVI



Publicado no Âncora em junho de 2013.
Tradução Hebe Rondon Flandoli. Revisão Edson Campos.


[1] Marcos 9:23.

[2] Publicado originalmente em junho de 1989.

[3] 2 Coríntios 1:4.

[4] Publicado originalmente em dezembro de 1992.

Read More

Civilians Flee and Soldiers Die in Clashes in Lebanon

By Anne Barnard, NY Times, June 24, 2013

SIDON, Lebanon—Tanks careened through this seaside city, gunfire crackled along near-deserted streets and thick smoke rose from the hilltop neighborhood where followers of a radical Sunni cleric clashed for a second day on Monday with the Lebanese Army, killing at least 12 soldiers. The deaths were the army’s worst losses since the conflict in neighboring Syria began fueling sporadic skirmishes in Lebanon two years ago.

During pauses in the battle, families sped away in packed cars, waving white flags improvised from ripped sheets; one even used a bunch of tissues. Taken by surprise, some residents spent the night pinned down in supermarkets, in their offices, in a KFC chicken franchise.

Though the fighting seemed to have eased by early evening, shaken residents said they feared the clashes—which shut down a religiously mixed city of 200,000, left windows shattered in gleaming downtown malls and pitted the army against a provocative cleric who has played on sectarian tensions—revealed that the country was drifting rudderless toward deepening conflict.

Lebanon’s mainstream political leaders, residents said, appeared powerless or unwilling to rein in the cleric or address his followers’ concerns, leading to a clash they called more dangerous and destabilizing than the perennial battles between supporters and opponents of the Syrian government in the northern city of Tripoli, which have largely been confined to two neighborhoods. In this case, the conflict was rooted in a Lebanese power struggle that resonates throughout the country, a troubling development for a nation that lived through 15 years of sectarian civil war.

In the emergency room of Hamoud Hospital, which received more than 40 wounded soldiers and 10 injured civilians, several stricken-looking surgeons said the fighting felt like the early skirmishes of the civil war in 1975. Asked whether it could be contained, they cast their gaze downward.

"We hope," one said, as the wail of a woman who had lost her son in the fighting echoed through the corridor.

Read More

Afghan Diplomats Defect as Western Withdrawal Nears

By Hasnain Kazim, Der Spiegel, June 24, 2013

A total of 105 Afghani diplomats were meant to report for duty at the Foreign Ministry in Kabul on Saturday. They were being rotated out of their foreign postings as scheduled, and it was time to return to headquarters. Yet just five of them have resurfaced. The others have apparently remained in the countries where they had been posted, among them several employees of the Afghan Embassy in Berlin.

Sources at the Afghan Foreign Ministry have informed SPIEGEL ONLINE that embassy staff members have said they would apply for asylum in their respective host countries or at least apply for an extension of their service until the presidential election in spring 2014. “They are hoping that there is more clarity about the future of our country by that point," said an employee of the ministry. “I feel as though there has been an exodus. No one wants to return to Afghanistan," said the employee, who added that they couldn’t be faulted for wanting to stay away from “the situation in the country."

According to recent surveys, most Afghans believe the country will sink into chaos and violence and expect that civil war will break out once Western forces withdraw at the end of 2014. For months, the Taliban and various other ethnic groups have been arming themselves in preparation for a fight for power in the country.

Many Afghan diplomats are the sons and daughters of high-ranking politicians who are also trying to go abroad as soon as possible and stay there until the situation in Afghanistan becomes clearer.

International foundations and organizations that organize educational trips and conferences for Afghans abroad have also become more cautious recently. They know that more and more trip participants will disappear. It is said in Kabul that several Afghan teachers never returned from a trip organized recently by the German government. And a high-ranking official from the Afghan Foreign Ministry called home during a trip to Canada to say that he wouldn’t be coming back.

"I can confirm this trend," says Tinko Weibezahl, the head of the Kabul office of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. “In recent months some of our most qualified contacts have left the country. The refugees are above all “the highly educated, who were much more optimistic about the future a year ago," Weibezahl says. Government ministers, lawmakers and senior military officials are also attempting to get their families out of the country.

The story of the hopeful future of an Afghanistan that stands on its own two feet, that is safe and peaceful and democratically governed, “is just a story that the West likes to tell us," says a senior official from the presidential palace in Kabul. “This story has just one catch: Most Afghans don’t believe it."

Read More

Pope 'snub' of concert stuns cardinals, sends signal

By Philip Pullella, Reuters, June 24, 2013

VATICAN CITY (Reuters)—A last-minute no-show by Pope Francis at a concert where he was to have been the guest of honor has sent another clear signal that he is going to do things his way and does not like the Vatican high life.

The gala classical concert on Saturday was scheduled before his election in March. But the white papal armchair set up in the presumption that he would be there remained empty.

Minutes before the concert was due to start, an archbishop told the crowd of cardinals and Italian dignitaries that an “urgent commitment that cannot be postponed" would prevent Francis from attending.

The prelates, assured that health was not the reason for the no-show, looked disoriented, realizing that the message he wanted to send was that, with the Church in crisis, he—and perhaps they—had too much pastoral work to do to attend social events.

"It took us by surprise," said one Vatican source on Monday. “We are still in a period of growing pains. He is still learning how to be pope and we are still learning how he wants to do it."

"In Argentina, they probably knew not to arrange social events like concerts for him because he probably wouldn’t go," said the source, who spoke anonymously because he is not authorized to discuss the issue.

Since his election on March 13, Francis, the former cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina, has not spent a single night in the opulent and spacious papal apartments.

He has preferred to live in a small suite in a busy Vatican guest house, where he takes most meals in a communal dining room and says Mass every morning in the house chapel rather than the private papal chapel in the Apostolic Palace.

The day before the concert, Francis said bishops should be “close to the people" and not have “the mentality of a prince".

On Saturday, while the concert was in progress in an auditorium just meters (yards) away, Francis was believed to be working on new appointments for the Curia, the Vatican’s troubled central administration.

The administration was held responsible for some of the mishaps and scandals that plagued the eight-year reign of Pope Benedict before he resigned in February.

Read More

Habit Mastery: Creating the New Normal

By Leo Babauta, ETR, June 25, 2013

Changing habits, at its core, is simply a process of changing what’s normal for you.

This is something I’ve done myself many times over the last decade. Here’s just a sample of the new normal I’ve achieved in my life:

• Not smoking became my new normal (lots of pain for a month or so)
• Running became normal
• Writing every day became normal
• Not having sugar in my coffee became normal
• Eating whole foods (instead of junk foods) became normal
• Meditating every morning became normal
• Having less stuff and a simpler home became my new normal
• Reducing and eventually (mostly) eliminating sugar became normal
• And so on: no car, walk and ride mass transit, do less, becoming content with myself, working for myself, etc.

In fact, you could say the last 8 years of my life has been a constant adjusting of what’s normal. Adjusting normal is my normal now.

However, for most people, changing is tough because there’s some pain in changing. When you have a problem, there is the pain it causes in your life, but there’s also a pain of trying to change it. When the payoff of trying to change is outweighed by the payoff of continuing the old way, people stick with what they’re comfortable with.

How do we overcome this problem of the pain of change? Start small, start with one thing at a time, and make the change easier. You want to make changing the path of least resistance, because change usually isn’t for most people.

If you make a drastic change, it feels really hard and really different, and not something you can stick to for very long.

But when you make a change easier, it makes it easier to take that all-important first step. Once you take that first step, you have a bit of forward momentum. And it’s much easier to be consistent and stick with something for a long time.

Let’s take an example: I used to drink coffee with lots of added sugar. I used to think there was nothing wrong with that, but eventually I realized I was making an excuse for putting crap in my body. So I started by putting half a teaspoon less in my coffee. At first, it was slightly less good. But after a few days, it tasted exactly like normal, like what I was used to. And then I took out another half a teaspoon, and it was slightly less good for a while, and then after a while it was exactly what I was used to.

Our minds tend to adjust over time. That’s my change process—I gradually adjust what’s normal to me. Eventually I didn’t need any sugar in my coffee, and it was just as good for me, I didn’t have all that crap, and I enjoyed it the same.

You can do this with anything—exercise, meditation, procrastination. Gradually adjust what feels like normal to you.

Here’s the process:
1. Start small. What’s the smallest increment you can do? Do this for at least 3 days, preferably 4-5.

2. Get started. Starting the change each day is the most important thing. Want to run? Just get out the door. Want to meditate? Just get on the cushion.

3. Enjoy the change. Don’t look at this as a sacrifice. It’s fun, it’s learning, it’s a challenge.

4. Stick to the change. Notice your urge to quit. Don’t act on it. Keep going.

5. Adjust again. When the change becomes normal, make another small adjustment.

This is the process of creating a new normal. It’s beautiful and simple

Read More

Rob Bell- Covered in the Dust of your Rabbi!

Read More

His Gifts, His Rewards

Words from Jesus

Download Audio (10.4MB)
A perfect fit

He makes the whole body fit together perfectly. As each part does its own special work, it helps the other parts grow, so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love.—Ephesians 4:16 NLT



I have gifted all My children, but many do not see or perceive My gifts because they look or perceive with the eyes of man instead of the eyes of the Spirit. They judge according to outward appearance, according to that which is great in their own minds, instead of judging righteous judgment.

I have gifted all My children differently so that they can be as a body fitly joined together, each one doing his part to make My kingdom strong. I have gifted some with many gifts, some with fewer gifts. The important point is not whether there are many or fewer gifts, but that those gifts come from My hand.

You must trust Me to know that I have made you what you need to be and what I want you to be. Your rewards in this life and in the life to come will not be according to the number of gifts you have, nor according to the greatness of the gifts. Your rewards will be according to your faithfulness and what you do with the gifts that I have given you.

*

Taste and see that the Lord is good. Oh, the joys of those who take refuge in him! … Those who trust in the Lord will lack no good thing.—Psalm 34:8, 10 NLT



Come unto Me and find rest in My arms. Be filled to overflowing with My love, for I have so much to give! I promise you that I will not fail you. I will be a faithful Husband and a faithful provider. For I am the giver of gifts, I am the supplier of needs, and I am your Husband.

So stay close to Me. Be filled with Me, and I will pour out My Spirit upon you in great measure, that you may be filled, that you may be strengthened, and that you may accomplish My purpose through the gifts and the blessings that I pour upon you.


Faithful servant

To those who use well what they are given, even more will be given, and they will have an abundance. But from those who do nothing, even what little they have will be taken away.—Matthew 25:29 NLT



In My kingdom, in the life to come, you will not be rewarded according to the gifts that you were given, but according to your faithfulness and your yieldedness. Each person will be rewarded according to that which he received from My hand, and that which he returned unto My hand in the way of diligence, faithfulness, fruitfulness, and obedience.

The gifts and talents that a man has are gifts from My hand. Therefore glory not in your gifts and talents, but give Me the glory. Seek diligently and wholeheartedly to do your best with what you have been given, knowing that I will reward you accordingly for a job well done.

I will reward you in this life, and in the life to come I will crown you with a crown of glory!

*

Yours, O Lord, is the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory, and the majesty. Everything in the heavens and on earth is yours, O Lord, and this is your kingdom. We adore you as the one who is over all things. Wealth and honor come from you alone, for you rule over everything. Power and might are in your hand, and at your discretion people are made great and given strength. O our God, we thank you and praise your glorious name! But who am I, and who are my people, that we could give anything to you? Everything we have has come from you, and we give you only what you first gave us!—1 Chronicles 29:11–14 NLT



Your rewards are not a result of what your gifts and talents are or how many you have, but the rewards are a result of what you do with such gifts. I seek not those who are strong and great in themselves but those who are willing to glorify Me. I seek those who are willing to acknowledge that all that they have and all that they are comes from Me—that it is My gift, My blessing, My anointing, My power in their lives.

Someone who has fewer gifts and talents, who acknowledges his weakness and depends upon Me and gives Me all the glory will be more greatly rewarded than one who is strong and mighty and greatly gifted with many talents and skills, yet who leans to his own strength and takes the glory to himself. No matter what your gifts and talents, whether they be many or few, if you give them all to Me and invest them well and are diligent, careful, prayerful, faithful, and do your very best for Me, this will be rewarded.


Called and chosen

God never changes his mind when he gives gifts or when he calls someone.—Romans 11:29 GW



I have ordained you from the very foundation of the world. I have called you, and you have been faithful to heed My call. I appreciate your yieldedness and your sacrifice in giving your time and strength to do My will to serve others. Every deed of kindness, every loving word, every stooping to lift the burden of another is noticed by Me.

I have given you many gifts—strength of body, strength of mind, strength of character—and I will use these gifts even more greatly as you continue to commit your life to Me and to love others. As you continue to look steadfastly to Me and listen to My whispers, I won’t fail to instruct you and guide you in all your ways. Your faithfulness to love others and shower tender raindrops of love and care and diligence are so beautiful to Me. You are very precious and dear to Me.


Returns on the investment

My rewards are not meted out according to the number of gifts and the strength of a man, but according to your faithfulness, yieldedness, and humility. So you see, the rewards do not gauge how much or how little I love a person, for once again, My love is unchanging and constant. I love each person equally, whether they are great or small.

The rewards I pour forth depend upon you and how you live, what you do for Me and others. I have made an original investment in you as an individual, and the returns that you will receive on that investment depend on what you do with it—whether you take the investment and you hide it away and bury it, or whether you use it wisely, consistently, and faithfully.

You are responsible for the rewards, for the returns, and for the blessings that you receive from Me.

*

May all the gifts and benefits that come from God our Father, and the Master, Jesus Christ, be yours.Every time I think of you—and I think of you often!—I thank God for your lives of free and open access to God, given by Jesus. … Just think—you don’t need a thing, you’ve got it all! All God’s gifts are right in front of you as you wait expectantly for our Master Jesus to arrive on the scene for the Finale. And not only that, but God himself is right alongside to keep you steady and on track until things are all wrapped up by Jesus. God, who got you started in this spiritual adventure, shares with us the life of his Son and our Master Jesus. He will never give up on you. Never forget that.—1 Corinthians 1:3–9 MSG



Imagine that there is a scale before you. It is a balance, and I took My own Son, the one who is dearest to Me, My one and only Son, and I laid Him on one side of the scale. It tipped so far to that side! Then I took you, with all your weaknesses and your shortcomings and your failings, and all the things about yourself that bother you so much and that you think make you of so little value and that make you so hard to love and unworthy of My love, and I put you—just you—on the other side of the scale. And the scale was perfectly balanced!

I saw that it was a good trade, to put My Son on one side, and you—just you—on the other side. I saw that it was worth it to trade the life of My Son for you, that I might redeem you forever. It was worth it to give My Son just for you. This is how great My love is for you.

Originally published 1997. Updated and republished June 2013. Read by Jon Marc.
Music by Michael Dooley.

Read More

Hatred between Sunnis, Shiites abounds in Mideast

By Lee Keath, AP, Jun 23, 2013

CAIRO (AP)—It’s not hard to find stereotypes, caricatures and outright bigotry when talk in the Middle East turns to the tensions between Islam’s two main sects.

Shiites are described as devious, power-hungry corruptors of Islam. Sunnis are called extremist, intolerant oppressors.

Hatreds between the two are now more virulent than ever in the Arab world because of Syria’s civil war. Hard-line clerics and politicians on both sides in the region have added fuel, depicting the fight as essentially a war of survival for their sect.

But among the public, views are complex. Some sincerely see the other side as wrong—whether on matters of faith or politics. Others see the divisions as purely political, created for cynical aims. Even some who view the other sect negatively fear sectarian flames are burning dangerously out of control. There are those who wish for a return to the days, only a decade or two ago, when the differences did not seem so important and the sects got along better, even intermarried.

And some are simply frustrated that there is so much turmoil over a dispute that dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century.

“Fourteen centuries after the death of the prophet, in a region full of destruction, killing, occupation, ignorance and disease, you are telling me about Sunnis and Shiites?” scoffs Ismail al-Hamami, a 67-year-old Sunni Palestinian refugee in Gaza. “We are all Muslims.”

Associated Press correspondents spoke to Shiites and Sunnis across the region. Amid the variety of viewpoints, they found a public struggling with anger that is increasingly curdling into hatred.

BACKGROUND. The Sunni-Shiite split is rooted in the question of who should succeed Muhammad in leading Muslims after his death in 632. Shiites say the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law Ali was his rightful successor but was cheated when authority went to those the Sunnis call the four “Rightfully Guided Caliphs”—Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman and, finally, Ali.

Sunnis are the majority across the Islamic world. In the Middle East, Shiites have strong majorities in Iran, Iraq and Bahrain, with significant communities in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other parts of the Gulf.

Both consider the Quran the word of God. But there are distinctions in theology and religious practice between the two sects.

Some are minor: Shiites pray with their hands by their sides, Sunnis with their hands crossed at their chest or stomach.

Others are significant. Shiites, for example, believe Ali and a string of his descendants, the Imams, had not only rightful political authority after Muhammad but also held a special religious wisdom. Most Shiites believe there were 12 Imams—many of them “martyred” by Sunnis—and the 12th vanished, to one day return and restore justice. Sunnis accuse the Shiites of elevating Ali to the level of Muhammad himself—incorrectly, since Shiites agree that Muhammad was the last of the prophets, a central tenet of Islam.

The bitter disputes of early Islam still resonate. But only the most hard-core would say those differences are reason enough to hate each other. For that, politics is needed.

IRAQ: If Syria’s war has raised the region’s sectarian hatreds, the war in Iraq played a big role in unleashing them. After the U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, the long-oppressed Shiite majority there saw a chance to take power. Sunnis feared the repression would flip onto them. The result was vicious sectarian fighting that lasted until 2008: Sunni extremists pulled Shiite pilgrims from buses and gunned them down; Shiite militiamen kidnapped Sunnis, dumping their tortured bodies later.

ABDUL-SATTAR ABDUL-JABAR, 56, is a Sunni cleric who occasionally preaches at the prominent Abu Hanifa mosque in the Sunni-dominated Azamiyah neighborhood of Baghdad. Two of his sons were killed by Shiite militiamen. He blames the United States and Iran for Iraq’s strife.

“Right from the beginning, the Americans were trying to create sectarian rifts,” he said. “Iran is a country of regional ambitions. It isn’t a Shiite country. It’s a country with specific schemes and agendas.”

Now he fears the strife is returning, and he blames the Shiite-dominated government.

“We feel the government does not consider us part of the Iraqi nation,” he said. “There is no magical solution for this. If the Shiites are convinced to change their politicians, that would be a big help.”

HUSSEIN AL-RUBAIE, 46, a Shiite, was jailed for two years under Saddam. His Shiite-majority Sadriya district in Baghdad saw considerable bloodshed during the worst of the strife, and he fears it’s returning.

“The whole region is in flames and we are all about to be burnt,” he said. “We have a lot of people who are ignorant and easily driven by sectarian feelings.”

He sees it among his friends, who include Sunnis. “My friends only whisper about sectarian things because they think it is a shame to talk about such matters,” al-Rubaie said, “but I am afraid that the day might come when this soft talking would turn to fighting in the street.”

LEBANON. Among some of Lebanon’s Shiites, it’s fashionable to wear a necklace with a medallion in the shape of the fabled double-bladed sword of Ali. It’s a mark of community pride at a time when the Shiite group Hezbollah says the sect is endangered by Sunni extremists in the Syrian uprising.

During Lebanon’s 1975-1990 civil war, the main fight was between Christians and Muslims. But in the past decade, the most dangerous divide has been between Shiites and Sunnis.

For much of Lebanon’s existence, Shiites, who make up about a third of the population, were an impoverished underclass beneath the Christians and Sunnis, each roughly a third also. The Shiite resentment helped the rise of the guerrilla force Hezbollah, on whose might the community won greater power. Now, many Sunnis resent Hezbollah’s political domination of the government. The 2005 assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a Sunni, increased Sunni anger after Hezbollah members were blamed. Since then, both sides have clashed in the streets.

Syria’s civil war has fueled those tensions. Lebanon’s Sunnis largely back the mainly Sunni rebellion, while Shiites support President Bashar Assad’s regime, which is dominated by his Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiism. Hezbollah sent fighters to help Assad fight the rebels, enraging Sunnis region-wide.

RANIA, 51, is a Shiite Lebanese banking executive, married to a Sunni and living in Ras Beirut, one of the capital’s few mixed neighborhoods.

When she married, at age 22, “I didn’t even know what the difference between Sunnis and Shiites is.”

Now she’s inclined to support Hezbollah. While not a fan of the hard-line group, she believes that Hezbollah and Syria are targeted because of their stances against Israel. She said her husband is anti-Hezbollah and supports Syria’s rebels.

Rania, who gave only her first name because she doesn’t want to be stigmatized about her social, religious or marital status, said she doesn’t talk politics with her husband to avoid arguments.

“I support one (political) side and he supports the other, but we’ve found a way to live with it,” added Rania, who has a 22-year-old daughter.

She said education plays a big role. “I find that the people who make comments about it are the people who are just ignorant, and ignorance feeds hatred and stereotyping,” she added.

KHALED CHALLAH is a 28-year-old Syrian Sunni businessman who has lived for years in Lebanon. He comes from a conservative, religious family but only occasionally goes to mosque. He said the only way he would be able to tell the difference between a Sunni mosque and a Shiite one would be if the cleric talked about Syria in the sermon.

“A Shiite imam would speak against the rebels, and call to resist them, and a Sunni sheik would talk against the government in Syria,” he said.

He said he still doesn’t understand the Shiites’ emotional fervor over the battle of Karbala, in which Ali’s son, Hussein, was killed by the armies of the Sunni Ummayad dynasty in the 7th century. Hussein’s martyrdom is a defining trauma of their faith, deepening their feeling of oppression. Every year, Shiites around the world mark the battle with processions that turn into festivals of mourning, with men lashing or cutting themselves.

“It means much more to Shiites, this battle’s memory, than to Sunnis,” Challah said.

He said Sunnis “behave sometimes like they are the only Muslims.”

Challah called this “very silly. Sunnis and Shiites come from the same root, they worship the same God.”

IRAN. The Shiite powerhouse of the Middle East is home to a government led by Shiite clerics with oil wealth and a powerful Revolutionary Guard. Tehran has extended its influence in the Arab world, mainly through its alliance with Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Iran has presented that alliance not as sectarian but as the center of “resistance” against Israel.

Sunni Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies have been trying to stem Iran’s influence, in part by warning of the spread of Shiism. Saudi Arabia’s hard-line Wahhabi interpretation of Sunni Islam views Shiism as heresy.

EGYPT. In a country where the Muslim population is overwhelmingly Sunni, many Egyptians know little about Shiites. The Shiite population is tiny and largely hidden—so secretive that its numbers are not really known. But ultraconservative Salafis, many of whom view Shiites as infidels, have become more politically powerful and more vocal since the 2011 fall of autocrat Hosni Mubarak. They often preach against Shiism, warning it will spread to Egypt.

MONA MOHAMMED FOUAD is a rarity in Egypt: Her mother is an Iranian Shiite, her father an Egyptian Sunni. She considers herself Sunni.

“People are always surprised and shocked” when they find out her mother is Shiite, said Fouad, 23, who works for a digital marketing company. “But usually as soon as they know, they are very interested and they ask me many questions.”

Fouad said her sister has heard work colleagues criticizing Shiites. In her fiance’s office they distributed leaflets “telling people to beware of Shiite indoctrination,” she added.

“People should read about Shiism. We make fun of foreigners who believe all Muslims are terrorists and we say they are ignorant, but we do the same thing to ourselves,” Fouad said. “There is a difference in interpretation, a difference in opinion, but at the end of the day, we believe in the same things.”

She told her Sunni fiance from the start that her mother is Shiite. “I told him to tell his family, so if they have any problem with that, we end it immediately.”

PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES. Palestinian Muslims are also almost all Sunnis. Their main connection to the Shiite world has Hamas’ alliance with Iran. But those ties were strained when Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, broke its connections with Syria because of the civil war.

AHMED MESLEH, a 28-year-old blogger from the West Bank town of Ramallah, says he met Shiites on a trip to Lebanon and encounters them via Facebook. But some have de-friended him because of his online comments.

“If we take Shiites from a religious point of view, then we can describe Shiites as a sect that has gone astray from the true doctrine of Islam. I consider them a bigger threat to Muslims and Islam than Jews and Israel,” Mesleh said.

He cited the Shiites’ processions mourning Hussein’s death, saying: “The way they whip themselves, it’s irrational.”

The Middle East conflict “is in its core a religious conflict. The Shiites want to destroy Islam. In Lebanon, they are the ones controlling the situation, and the ones who are causing the sectarian conflict.”

ISMAIL AL-HAMAMI, a 67-year-old Palestinian refugee in Gaza’s Shati camp, said politics not religion is driving sectarian tensions.

“In Gaza, Iran used to support the resistance with weapons. Now they support Assad. … In Iraq, they (Shiites) executed Saddam Hussein, who was a Sunni, and they took over the country with the help of the Americans. Now they are working against America in Iran and Syria.”

“So is that related to religion? It’s all about politics.”

The beneficiaries of sectarianism, he said, are “those who want to sell arms to both sides … those who want to keep Arab and Muslim countries living in the dark. The beneficiaries are the occupation (Israel) and the people who sell us religious slogans.”

“God knows who is right or wrong.”

Read More