What makes You sad? What makes You cry?
It’s super sad, to me, when anyone is killed! (A life/process cut short/stolen/time taken.) Innocent ones have been martyred (by many torturous “mean”s) throughout human history…literally..(and nowadays: virtually or in the media/social or on film).
Sunday evening, Hubby, our Girls, (and me) watched “portions” of–(Bill O’Reilly’s so-called “history” book..yeah, HIS story? book about the Carpenter’s son brought to film)–Killing Jesus on National Geographic channel. (Actually, I was hoping to catch an Alaskan Bush People episode instead.) And as a person (46 years old–from youth to maturity) who has read about/studied/researched/investigated in-depth/thoroughly pursued (learning) knowing this person of interest, this “perfect” example of great compassion, this great teacher thereof, Jesus,…I was curious (to say the least).
This post is NOT a movie review nor a book review…exactly/per se. (Do random excerpts of books & random excerpts of movies count for review??) May be? You’ll call this post: HER story. (Read on as i eat my own words–“Don’t Judge a Book by its Cover!” Tasty?? -lol:)
Hey! i guess, it takes something..some kind of something…(no vocabulary word is coming to mind…insert Your own) to render a passionate follower/fan of Jesus…stale/unimpressed by a movie that deflates climatic/awe-inspiring accounts of incredible feats/miracles of compassion and sacrifice as totally anti-climatic!! (Dare i! say, this movie was Anti-Christ?!) I’m not knocking the actor (who played Jesus)…tough role; for sure. (Perhaps, i should of watched the entire thing to form a more positive feel for it. The feeling i do get is: most likely, saw the better portions. (The ones that kept me from channel surfing or falling asleep.) The ones that needed/”attempted” to grab/attract the attention of a person who didn’t need “any” attention grabbing/attracting to begin with…(before watching bits of Killing Jesus…Did the movie murder it for me?).
I’m “kinda” knocking the compilation/filter/script/presentation of filled in glaring gaps and omissions (on film from what i did watch) in Jesus’ life put forth and withheld (that couldn’t help notice/acknowledge). Probably because of being a person familiar/well-acquainted with the historicity of the Nazarene aka The Sage from Capernaum, The Prince of Peace, Humble Washer of Feet, Healer of Lepers, Gregarious Great Teacher…
He presented matters of great weight and depth with simplicity, brevity, and clarity. He illustrated his points with things well known to his listeners (Mt 13:34, 35)—to fishermen (Mt 13:47, 48), shepherds (Joh 10:1-17), farmers (Mt 13:3-9), builders (Mt 7:24-27; Lu 14:28-30), merchants (Mt 13:45, 46), slaves or masters (Lu 16:1-9), housewives (Mt 13:33; Lu 15:8), or anyone else (Mt 6:26-30). Simple things, like bread, water, salt, wineskins, old garments, were used as symbols of things of great importance, even as they were so used in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Joh 6:31-35, 51; 4:13, 14; Mt 5:13; Lu 5:36-39) His logic, often expressed through analogies, cleared away misguided objections and put matters in their proper perspective. (Mt 16:1-3; Lu 11:11-22; 14:1-6) He aimed his message primarily at men’s hearts, using penetrating questions to cause them to think, arrive at their own conclusions, examine their motives, and make decisions. (Mt 16:5-16; 17:24-27; 26:52-54; Mr 3:1-5; Lu 10:25-37; Joh 18:11) He did not strive to win over the masses but endeavored to awaken the hearts of those sincerely hungering for truth and righteousness.—Mt 5:3, 6; 13:10-15. (Excerpted: Insight On Scriptures, Vol. 2 Jesus Christ–Master Teacher)
Excerpts seen of this “particular” movie (Killing Jesus)/take on Jesus…left him a silent stranger to me…and did, in my opinion, unjustly Kill “the Greatest Man who Ever Lived”..again! (FYI: The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived is 1 fav book of mine about Jesus.)
(Perhaps ? I am being a bit dramatic, okay, yeah!…how could any film do Jesus justice?? And most movies seem unable to fully capture the essence of any book. May be? for someone less familiar (or unfamiliar), this was an “okay” (adequate) introduction to Jesus.)
This is what Bill O’Reilly says:
To say that Jesus of Nazareth was the most influential man who ever lived is almost trite. Nearly two thousand years after he was brutally executed by Roman soldiers, more than 2.2 billion human beings attempt to follow his teachings and believe he is God. That includes 77 percent of the U.S. population, according to a Gallup Poll. The teachings of Jesus have shaped the entire world and continue to do so.
Much has been written about Jesus, the son of a humble carpenter. But little is actually known about him. Of course we have the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but they sometimes appear contradictory and were written from a spiritual point of view rather than as a historical chronicling of Jesus’s life. Who Jesus actually was and what exactly happened to him are emotional subjects that often lead to contentious discussion.
Martin Dugard and I are both Roman Catholics who were educated in religious schools. But we are also historical investigators and are interested primarily in telling the truth about important people, not converting anyone to a spiritual cause. We brought this dedication and discipline to Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, and in these pages we will do the same with Jesus of Nazareth. By the way, both Lincoln and Kennedy believed Jesus was God.
Sorry Bill (& Martin)…but, You got me laughing a little (at the above-highlighted) and thinking:) “Really O’Reilly?!”
Yeah, we may NOT take Your word for it …that Jesus “supposedly is” God (a Catholic/Non-Biblical teaching), but we might just accept it from (your soft-er/best-er sell-ers) Lincoln & Kennedy, eh?! (or from the popular poll of 2.2 billion opinions). If we cannot believe Bill, Lincoln or Kennedy, then surely–2 billion people cannot be wrong?? (about God?!) Do 2 billion opinions (aka “non-facts”) make 1 (O’Reilly) right (aka “accurate”)?! Is popular opinion “truth”?
Really-O’Reilly?! It’s a riot! to me, that You claim Not to be pushing a spiritual POV “whatsoever”? (even though, educated in religious schools (or rather is it: programmed by?) and professing to be Roman Catholic)…and that this book is purely “fact” based/well-researched or is it “really” a popular-opinion/tradition-based book?! Or is it pushing some (modern-day) political agenda in ancient carpenter costume (disguise)? Or is it just a follow-up (killer formula)…last two books killed it/made money/made hot lists?
Makes me wonder: 1 look at the cover: A Cross smacks/pops me in the face!…an immediate red-flag goes up in my mind:…a blatant Catholic/pop-ular Idol/doctrine is making me eat my words “don’t judge a book by its cover.” (YUM) IF–these authors supposedly are not pushing a spiritual agenda/point of view/popular dogma about Jesus…What’s up with the Cross Cover?? Or the Cross Crucifixion in the movie?? Or showing the movie on Palm Sunday??
According to Greek scholar W. E. Vine, staurosʹ “denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroō, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.”
The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says that the word staurosʹ “properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground.” The dictionary continues: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (Latin, from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.” Thus, it is not surprising that The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end.”
There is another Greek word, xyʹlon, that Bible writers used to describe the instrument of Jesus’ execution. A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament defines xyʹlon as “a piece of timber, a wooden stake.” It goes on to say that like staurosʹ, xyʹlon “was simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified.” (Excerpted: Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross?)
Crossing Out the “Christian” Cross: (further excerpts: Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross?)
Long before the Christian era, crosses were used by the ancient Babylonians as symbols in their worship of the fertility god Tammuz. The use of the cross spread into Egypt, India, Syria, and China.
If the Bible does not really say that Jesus was executed on a cross, then why do all the churches that claim to teach and follow the Bible—Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox—adorn their buildings with the cross and use it as a symbol of their faith? How did the cross come to be such a popular symbol?
The answer is that the cross is venerated not only by churchgoers who claim to follow the Bible but also by people far removed from the Bible and whose worship far predates that of “Christian” churches. Numerous religious reference works acknowledge that the use of crosses in various shapes and forms goes back to remote periods of human civilization. For example, ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and depictions of their gods and goddesses often show a cross in the shape of a T with a circle at the top. It is called the ansate, or handle-shaped, cross and is thought to be a symbol of life. In time, this form of the cross was adopted and used extensively by the Coptic Church and others.
According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, “the primitive form of the cross seems to have been that of the so-called ‘gamma’ cross (crux gammata), better known to Orientalists and students of prehistoric archæology by its Sanskrit name, swastika.” This sign was widely used among Hindus in India and Buddhists throughout Asia and is still seen in decorations and ornaments in those areas.
The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons, explains: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross.”
Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words states: “By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols,” [including the cross].
What about the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (close friends/followers of Jesus)…authenticity? contradictory? historical accuracy? (Excerpts from: an Awesome article..(read back in 2000 & reread recently) The Gospels—History or Myth?
Author and critic C. S. Lewis found it difficult to view the Gospels as mere legends. “As a literary historian I am perfectly convinced that whatever the Gospels are, they are not legends,” he wrote. “They are not artistic enough to be legends. . . . Most of the life of Jesus is unknown to us, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so.” It is also interesting that although noted historian H. G. Wells did not claim to be a Christian, he acknowledged: “All four [Gospel writers] agree in giving us a picture of a very definite personality; they carry the . . . conviction of reality.”
In his book Caesar and Christ, historian Will Durant writes: “That a few simple men should . . . have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.”
What of the claims of higher critics that the Gospels do not meet the criteria of real history? Continues Durant: “In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus’ arrest, Peter’s denial . . . No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them.”
Historian Wells realized that there is a huge gap between the teachings of Jesus as presented in the Gospels and those of Christendom. He wrote: “There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the Trinity—at any rate from him. . . . Nor did [Jesus] say a word about the worship of his mother Mary, in the guise of Isis, the Queen of heaven. All that is most characteristically Christian in worship and usage, he ignored.” Therefore, one cannot judge the value of the Gospels on the basis of the teachings of Christendom.
What about Contradictions? (further excerpts The Gospels—History or Myth?)
Critics have long claimed that the Gospels are full of contradictions. Historian Durant sought to examine the Gospel accounts from a purely objective standpoint—as historical documents. Though he says that there are seeming contradictions in them, he concludes: “The contradictions are of minutiae [trivial details], not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ.”
Seeming contradictions in Gospel accounts are often easily resolved. To illustrate: Matthew 8:5 says that “an army officer came to [Jesus], entreating him” to cure a manservant. At Luke 7:3, we read that the officer “sent forth older men of the Jews to [Jesus] to ask him to come and bring [the] slave safely through.” The officer sent the elders as his representatives. Matthew says that the army officer himself entreated Jesus because the man made his request through the elders, who served as his mouthpiece. This is just one example showing that alleged discrepancies in the Gospels can be resolved.
Further related reading: tidbits about Jesus: please see:
Getting to know (and well/accurately) “any mind” can be challenging, huh?! Getting to know a person (Famous/Influential or Not)…What do You examine? What do You consider? Who do You ask? What do You read?…(The person’s writings IF available? Accounts from Friends? Accounts from Enemies? Accounts from Family? Legal Documents? Historical Documents? Reporting in Newspapers of the Day? Biographies, Autobiographies, etc., etc., etc.)
“These are not books, lumps of lifeless paper, but minds alive on the shelves.”~Gilbert Highet
For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah (Yahweh/God), so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:16)
(published 3/31/15 @ 11:03 a.m. word count 2420+…whew!) ALRIGHT!:)