Posted on 10/12/2004 2:54:10 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
A movie whose purpose is to prove that Jesus Christ never existed and that demonizes Christian fundamentalists is scheduled to open on June 6, 2006 – that is, 06-06-06, the "666" biblical mark of the Beast.
Directed by Brian Flemming, who is described on the film's website as a "former fundamentalist Christian," "The Beast" promises to spread the theory he claims is "gaining credibility among scholars" – that Jesus was made up out of thin air.
"The authors of the Gospels, writing 40 to 90 years after the supposed life of Christ, never intended for their works to be read as biographies. There are no credible non-Christian references to Christ during the period in which he is said to have lived," states the film's site.
Currently in pre-production, the film's cast and crew are "legally sworn to secrecy," the promotional site says.
Here's how the film's promoters describe its plot:
When her father, a biblical scholar, mysteriously disappears, a Christian high-school student named Danielle investigates. She discovers that he had stumbled across a cover-up of Christianity's best-kept secret: that Jesus Christ never existed.Now that she possesses proof of this dangerous fact, Danielle must confront two strong forces: a band of fundamentalist Christians who will stop at nothing to suppress the truth, and her own desire for Jesus Christ to be real.
Diving into factual territory well-explored by scholars but largely hidden from the view of the public, "The Beast" is an epic story of innocence lost, faith in crisis and the astonishing power of the truth to survive.
On the trailer, which is viewable on the film's site, ominous music plays while these words flash across the screen: "Centuries ago, a legend was invented… forgery … fraud … coercion … wealth … greed … torture … murder … war … gave it the power to dominate the world." The words are displayed on a background of a painting of Christ's face.
The producers offer a newsletter for those interested in following the making of the movie.
Fleming is touted on the film's website as "internationally acclaimed."
States the site: "Flemming's work has been called 'a parallel universe' by the BBC, 'jaggedly imaginative' by the New York Times, and 'immensely satisfying' by USA Today. The Fox News Channel dubbed him 'a young Oliver Stone.' Flemming won the New York Times Claiborne Pell Award for Original Vision for his groundbreaking feature film 'Nothing So Strange,' which was released theatrically in 2003 and is currently distributed on DVD in more than 200 countries."
Supporters of the film have participated in a discussion forum on the site.
Says one excited poster: "I must say, I highly commend this director for his immense courage on putting something like this out!! The fact that he has the courage to put out a movie about the possibility of Christ never existing after all the controversy surrounding a movie about the LIFE of Christ (well death really) is just amazing!!
"Mad Kudos (and thanks) to EVERYONE involved in the making of this movie and good luck in handling all the 'adverse' reactions!!"
Another participant enthused, "I'm so excited! I can't wait until it's released! This is DEFINITELY the age of Aquarius!!"
Greg Koukl is head of Stand to Reason, a Christian apologetics organization. He says this kind of story line is not unusual among books and movies.
"It always turns out that fundamentalist Christians are the bad guys," he told WorldNetDaily.
"The problem with this is the evidence they draw from is always out on the fringes of academic scholarship" – evidence, he says, that is not even used by the leaders of the leftist Jesus Seminar.
Koukl noted historians that have no affinity for fundamentalist Christianity certainly write about Jesus and his impact on history.
"Nobody is trying to explain the indelible mark of Jesus of Nazareth on history by saying he never existed," he said. "That's way beyond the pale. No credible historian would make that claim. … It's a bizarre statement from an academic perspective."
Koukl wonders what motive anyone would have to invent Jesus and then "fool everybody."
He dismisses "The Beast" promoters' argument that because no non-Christian accounts of Jesus exist from the time of his life, he must be a fictional character.
"It may be the case that only Caesar wrote about the Gaelic wars," he explained, "but just because there are no other writing about the Gaelic wars doesn't mean we can't trust Caesar," mentioning the four Gospels are themselves four separate accounts of Christ's life.
He mentioned there are a "number of historical references to Christ outside Christianity, which buttress the fact he did exist."
Ted Baehr, founder and publisher of MovieGuide and chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, predicts "The Beast" will bomb with American moviegoers.
"Generally, these movies do very poorly at the box office," he told WND. "'Saved!' which had a lot of publicity, did about $6 million at the box office. … That's pitiful."
Baehr said bringing the film's contentions into the light of day in the media works well to expose the agenda of its promoters.
"The way you pull the teeth of a false argument is bring up the argument first and show that it's frivolous and fallacious," he said. "Of course it's frivolous. The original apostles wouldn't have gone to their death for Jesus if they didn't believe he was real."
Baehr said, "There is a small group of teenagers who will see ['The Beast'] who will be convinced it is the truth. … It will have an impact on a susceptible few."
One of the film's producers, Amanda Jackson, was contacted for this story but did not respond by press time.
The difference is that if identical films were made "debunking" Islam and Christianity, the one debunking Islam would result in a few murders and many dead careers, the one "debunking" Christianity would result in several Academy awards. Go figure.
Ho Hum... I've read the end of the book guys.... WE WIN.
"...I wonder why the single most mind-blowing event of all time went unnoticed by historians who were in Rome at the time ..."
Maybe because they were in Rome. The Crucifixion occurred just outside of Jerusalem.
People may have forgotten the Father, but the Father has not forgotten us! It is best if we all keep that in mind.
Let us all put on the Armor of God, and be Soldiers ready at hand, mind and spirit!
Strange how Jesus has staying power, isn't it? The most recent example is the Soviet Union and the icons of communism, who destroyed the churches and attempted to wipe out Christianity by murder, theft and destruction. Now, they're on the trashheap of history and Jesus has moved to the center stage of many Russians' lives. It happens time and again with godless icons who attempt to crush Christianity: Hitler, Napoleon, Mao, the list goes on.
I would laugh - but he can face the Truth now, or face Him later...
SHHH!! Rome didn't exist!
Probably not, considering the Commentaries were written more than 50 years before Christ and references to its contents are made by numerous classical authors. This would imply numerous copies long before the monks came along (this was a fairly common practice).
Hell, classical scholars have been able to recreate whole sections of "lost works" because they were referred to by contemporary authors. In the case of the Commentaries, however, dozens of copies exist going back to around the time the originals were written.
"The authors of the Gospels, writing 40 to 90 years after the supposed life of Christ, never intended for their works to be read as biographies. There are no credible non-Christian references to Christ during the period in which he is said to have lived," states the film's site.
True, the writers of the Gospels were not writing history or biography but religious philosophy.
There are no credible references, but why would there be? If today we had to use a quill pen and ink that we made ourselves (and often the paper), how many of us would be in the historical record? At the time The Christ lived he was seen as nothing more than another rabble rousing itinerate preacher – hardly worthy of the effort by the ruling elite required to document him.
Let me first say that I am not a CHRISTIAN!!!, as the term is often used today.
I have no doubt that there was a man named Yeshua Ben Joseph born to Mary and Joseph, a carpenter in the area of Nazareth in Judea.
I have no doubt that he became an itinerate preacher. It would appear that he preached that simply obeying the letter of the Law was not enough, but that religion was in your heart, and not your actions alone. This was contrary to the line espoused by the ruling Jewish elite and would have aroused their ire. The Romans were having enough trouble with the people because of their numerous rebellions, and would not have looked on him with any favor – particularly if he refused to acknowledge the divinity of Caesar.
Due to political concerns it is quite reasonable to believe that the Roman governor would have appeased the Temple Priests and crucified him.
Without the intervention of Paul the Christ movement would have remained a minor Jewish sect. Paul was educated in the Greeko-Roman manner, was a Roman citizen, a bureaucrat and knew how to get things moving. Paul is not one of my favorite Christian writers, and I personally dislike much of what he interjected into Christianity – but without him the message of The Christ would not have survived.
As I look over this, and think of the origin and spread of Christianity I can find nothing that does not fit into historical perspective. I see no reason to doubt His existence. I see no reason to believe a group of power hungry people gathered together to formulate a new religion - an action that would not have generated any wealth or power for decades if not centuries.
Even if the movie perports Jesus never existed, ergo there is no God, then how do they explain the Old Testament?
Hmmmm, sounds like islam to me.
Real courage - Christians might do something drastic like... complain!
Real courage would be making a similar movie exposing Islam and its founder Mohammed!
I know I'm dreaming but what I'd like to see is Christians to totally ignore this movie as irrelevent (which it is).
Funny you should mention it -- I heard CBS has just been given exactly this and is planning an expose ....
There are other references. I believe the gnostic "Gospel of Thomas" has been found in a couple of different sites, virtually identical, owned by different if not competing ministries of the time, and all dated not much later than the very first part of the second century AD.
It would profit no one to go to some sect at the time and promote Christ's teachings, death and resurrection, unless that person was a first hand witness, or had very close intimate contact with first hand witnesses or the apostles themselves.
The widespread acknowledgement that there was a man named Christ who had been put to death by the Romans by almost all of the religious communities of the day is very compelling evidence indeed.
The Gospels were not intended to be an accurate history, but religious philosophy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.