A quote from an ABC interview:
It’s one of the biggest censorships of history. So, I thought somebody should say this, and then others might disagree, say, “Ahhh, this could not be! This is blasphemy!” But it’s OK — this is the 21st century. It’s time for information. It’s time for communication. They can go check it out.
Yup.
It must be Easter…and the latest debunking of orthodox Christian belief is getting press coverage.
The latest twist? It’s a film on the “life of Jesus” as told by the devout Iranian Muslim government.
Ironically, it was released at a time when “youths” are “rioting” because they are…well the police think they might be bored.
Or could it be because the Danish press, instead of cowering when told a death squad was planning to kill the publisher of the dreaded “cartoons of death“, decided to publish them as a protest for freedom of speech.
But depite the protests, no one thinks that the Dutch government is promoting the cartoons that ridicule Mohammed.
Yet when the Iranian government releases a movie blasphemous of Christian beliefs, the film wins praise at an “interfaith” film festival in Rome, for “generating interfaith dialogue”.
Well, why not.
Every religious holiday, the elites “discover” another “proof” that Christians are wrong about Jesus. Last year it was that Jesus was just a loud mouth preacher who got in trouble with the Roman authorities and ran off with Mary Magdalen and lived comfortably until a ripe old age.
And every year a similar “discovery” is touted. Last years’s the Da Vinci Code was only the latest.
And then you have the (now debunked) Jesus tomb story and the (now debunked) Gospel of Judas as front page stories generating oodles of publicity and TV specials, never mind that scholars, not theologians, have debunked the latter two as shoddy scholarship.
What few people understand is that these alternative stories about Jesus go back to the early days of Christianity, and in some areas for awhile became the most popular version of the creed. After all, it was a lot easier for those who believed in Zeus begetting Apollo and Hercules to change their religion to believing that Jehovah begat a superhero son than in believing that the one deity of the philosophers actually got his hands dirty by becoming a man in the old fashioned way, by being born….and into a dirty stable, of a poor working class family.
Better to believe Jesus was a minor god like Hercules, or a descended master, or a man whose body was used by a god (who conveniently flew the coop when Jesus was crucified), or that he wasn’t a lowly non Aryan Jew, but the son of a Roman soldier…. and of course he didn’t die and rise again. Like the Muslim story, someone else took his place, or he was taken from the cross and revived in the first century version of an ICU within three days, or…well, you get the picture.
Any story will do but the one preached by orthodox Christians.
What all these stories have in common is two things: One, that Jesus was not God, and that he didn’t die and rise again.
Two: That the alternative story is true, and the story told by the Catholic church is a lie. (place latest Catholic conspiracy theory here).
Mohammed in some ways had an excuse: The only Christianity he knew about was the non deity Christian type, so it is that version that got into the Koran.
Yet the filmmaker is presenting the same anti Catholic line as the DaVinci Code and a dozen other modern fictional novels: that the Council of Nicea tried to destroy the real version of Christianity…but this film adds the twist that Jesus was merely a man who prophecized the coming of Mohammed….but the rest of the story is the same: That the evil church tried to destroy the gospel that told the real truth.
Catholics might gingerly point out, however, that Constantine and his son Constantius, and later the Emperor Valens actually backed the Arian (Jesus as superman) version of Christianity, and for awhile the strongest supporter of what is now called Christian orthodoxy, Bishop Athanasius, was on the run from the authorities. The Catholic version of this tells the story of Athanasius who once hid in a well to avoid capture by the Emperor’s soldiers, leading one writer to wryly comment: At the time, there was only one Christian, in a well, but the truth triumphed in the long run.
Ah, yes, Truth.
In a world of multiculturalism, one might echo the words of Pilate: What is truth?
Let’s all be reasonable, and insist that religion is a psychological way of coping with difficulties, god is our projection of a father figure, and why argue about theology when we are all good people, so just shut up about your beliefs.
Such ideas are tempting now that leading writers see religion as the source of all wars and hatred (conveniently ignoring the “isms” of the twentieth century that pointed to scientific reasons for their murders, and also conveniently ignoring the numerous wars of China, whose 3000 year history is as bloody as Europe, but not as well known).
But if one believes that truth matters, then one has to answer the question that Jesus asked those who followed him: Who do you say I am?
If you believe Jesus is a prophet, an avantar, a superman, a loudmouth revolutionary, a fraud, or X (place latest fad here), then no problem. If these ideas are true, you can go on and make up your own religion, and see orthodox Christians as narrowminded deluded bigots.
But, at least be aware that there is another version of the story that might be true, one that has implications: That the maker of the galaxies saw men getting into trouble on their own, and realizing they didn’t understand the mystics, decided to teach them about how to live.
And if this happened, then maybe the lessons of the Sermon on the mount mean more than a warm fuzzy feeling.
For unlike preachers who impose legal strictures, and unlike mystics who use hyperbole in seeking God, Jesus used simple stories: stories better understood by the farmers of Luzon or Africa than the intelligencia.
Jesus talked of things we see every day: The sprouting seed, the lost sheep, the son who preferred parties to hard work but came back to be forgiven by a loving father.
The response of the authorities back then to such radical teaching was the same as it would be today: to silence the voice by a show trial and ridicule.
So the latest response to silence the teaching of Christ is that in the name of “religious understanding” we will promote a film that repeats the alternative story: that Christ found a patsy to die for him.
And the response of the politically correct will be praise.
But the response of Christians will be…prayer.
And maybe for those of us who are lowly bloggers, an explanation on why we think such films distort the true story of Christ.
—————————–
Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the rural Philippines. Her website is Finest Kind Clinic and Fishmarket, and she writes about religion/medical ethics at Boinkie’s Blog.















5 users commented in " Film debunks Jesus…the latest twist "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackbackthank you for posting this, whoever you are, wherever you are. my name is Nate. i am from Kansas, USA, and i want you to know you have a brother in Christ who supports you. Thanks be to God
Certainly, these “alternate” tales of the life of Christ are of dubious credibility to begin with, but what makes you so sure that the biblical account of Jesus is any more correct?
All you have to go on is four accounts, written long after the supposed events, proven historically inaccurate and contradictory in places, and then a series of letters to the churches advocating everything from submitting to your slave masters to prohibiting women from speaking in church or uncovering their heads.
If the bible is the living word of God, then it MUST be truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If there is untruth in the bible (and there is), then either the bible is not the word of God, or God is a liar and cannot be trusted, or the god described in the bible does not exist. There can be no middle ground.
If you can so easily condemn these alternate stories as being debunked by scholars, shouldn’t you apply the same standards to the original story?
Ah, no.
Thirty years ago, biblical scholarship said the gospels were written two hundred years after Christ.
However, since then the dates have been pushed back by scholars to the time when some witnesses were still alive. The Teaching Company has a nice set of lectures on modern biblical scholarship.
But the Bible is not a magic book dictated by an angel: it is a bunch of stories written with the help of the inspiration of the deity not dictated by him.
And the stories are not history or science, but written for teaching: they tell of how God works in our lives.
Each story can be interpreted as history (oral tradition), allegory, spiritual message, and part of how God works in our lives.
As for which books belong in the bibles, Catholics say that the Deity inspires the church as the final authority on all of this, and that the Holy Spirit will make sure they get it right, politicalfights, stupid bishops, corrupt emperors and all.
If you think the church is nonsense, then you can choose any of the books you want, but tell you the truth, if the Church wasn’t guided by God, and Jesus was not God’s son, then why bother at all? I mean, it’s a nice story, but I wouldn’t build my life on it.
As for your remarks about slave masters: one line out of context about women doesn’t describe the complex anthropology and psychology of human gender differences, human sexuality and marriage. John Paul II’s complex theology of the body would be a good place to start. Or if you don’t want to get intellectual, try one of Andrew Greeley’s pot broilers to see how Catholicism is practiced by the average American Christian who attends the Catholic church.
As for women keeping quiet in church: well, history shows that only one person outranks the Pope: and that is a saint, be it Mother Angelica or Catherine of Sienna. But that’s another story…
As for interpretation, the gospels are meant to be interpreted as history, are they not?
Which is correct? Did Judas take his blood money, feel remorse, then hang himself (Matthew 27)?
Or did he use the money to buy a field (Acts 1 18-19) and then die when his intestines burst out?
Did Jesus say the cock would crow twice (Mark 14:30) or three times (the other 3 gospels) before Peter disowned him three times?
The gospels describe Peter denying Jesus in exquisite detail, yet contradict one another.
Or how about historical accuracy? Take the town of Nazareth, hailed in the gospels as the birthplace of Jesus the Christ.
St Paul seems to know nothing of the town, despite having supposedly spent many years with the gospel writers.
Nazareth is never mentioned anywhere in the old testament.
There is no mention of the town by any historians prior to a mention in the beginning of the 4th century.
There are no ruins, unlike the 1st century ruins of nearby Sepphoris (a 45 minute walk away from Nazareth, yet not even mentioned in the gospels).
Matthew speaks of a fulfilled prophecy in Matthew 2.23: “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”
And yet the prophecy he speaks of is from Judges 13.5: “For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.”
Nazarite means ‘he who vows to grow long hair and serve god’. It does not mean the inhabitant of a city. Notice how Matthew misquotes Nazarite as Nazarene.
In fact, Nazarene was originally the name of an offshoot Christiant sect of the Essenes. The Nazerenes then split into two, and the losers of the Bar Kochbar War of 135 AD resettled in what is now the Nazareth Valley.
Luke 4:29 tells of the Nazerenes trying to kill Jesus: “and brought him to the precipice of the mountain that their city was built upon.”
The only problem is that the city of Nazareth is located in a valley, between gentle, rolling plains. There are no precipices, nor were there in 30 AD.
Treatment of women:
1 Timothy 2:11-12 “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
Bear in mind that this is St Paul instructing his successor, teaching him how a church should be run. Exactly how is this taken out of context? It seems pretty complete to me.
In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
Here we have a reinforcement of this teaching. Once again, I doubt this is being taken out of context.
If you are a true Christian, you will follow the teachings of the apostles, including this one. After all, he was an apostle chosen by God himself, and he speaks with the authority given to him by God.
Slavery:
Ephesians 6:5: “Slaves, obey your masters here on earth.”
I.E. Slavery is not something to be abolished or fought against, but rather accepted and submitted to.
Slavery is a recurring theme throughout the bible, and is never ever condemned by God (except for the Egyptian episode, but that’s a bit of a special case). In fact, slave owners are considered blessed because of their god given wealth.
Wolter just completely owned Nancy. Score one for rational thought.
Leave A Reply