Islamic Jesus

[FOTD]

Now I'm really confused.....I'm betting the devil is in the details.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Iranian film version of 'Islamic Jesus' made enough of a splash to spawn television spin-off
Director of 'Jesus, the Spirit of God' says aim is 'to make a bridge between Christianity and Islam'
By Agence France Presse (AFP)  
 
 
 Farhad Pouladi
Agence France Presse


TEHRAN: A director who shares the ideas of Iran's hard-line president has produced what he says is the first film giving an Islamic view of Jesus Christ, in a bid to show the "common ground" between Muslims and Christians. Nader Talebzadeh sees his movie, "Jesus, the Spirit of God," as an Islamic answer to Western productions such as Mel Gibson's 2004 film "The Passion of the Christ," which he praised as admirable but "wrong."

"Gibson's film is a very good film. I mean that it is a well-crafted movie. But the story is wrong - it was not like that," says Talebzadeh, referring to two key differences: Islam sees Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God, and does not believe he was crucified.

Talebzadeh says he even went to Gibson's mansion in Malibu, California, to show the Hollywood heavyweight his film. "But it was Sunday," he recalls. "The security at the gate received the film and the brochure and promised to deliver it." Talebzadeh never heard back.

Even in Iran, "Jesus, the Spirit of God" had a low-key reception, playing to moderate audiences in five Tehran cinemas in October, during the month of Ramadan.

The film, funded by state broadcasting, faded off the billboards but is far from dead. It is about to be recycled into a major 20-episode spin-off to be broadcast over state-run national television later this year.

Talebzadeh insists it aims to bridge differences between Christianity and Islam, despite the stark divergence from Christian doctrine about Christ's final hours on earth.

"It is fascinating for Christians to know that Islam gives such devotion to and has so much knowledge about Jesus," says Talebzadeh.

"By making this film I wanted to make a bridge between Christianity and Islam, to open the door for dialogue since there is much common ground between Islam and Christianity," he says.

The director is also keen to emphasize the links between Jesus and one of the most important figures in Shiite Islam, the Imam Mehdi, said to have disappeared 12 centuries ago but whose "return" to earth has been a key tenet of the Ahmadinejad presidency.

Talebzadeh made his name making documentaries about Iran's 1980-1988 war with Iraq, an important genre in the country's post-revolutionary cinema.

But such weighty themes, and his latest film on Jesus, compete with domestic gangster thrillers and sugary boy-meets-girl love stories, which are the movies that continue to draw the biggest audiences in the Islamic Republic.
 

The bulk of "Jesus, the Spirit of God," which won an award at the 2007 Religion Today Film Festival in Italy, faithfully follows the traditional tale of Jesus as recounted in the New Testament, a narrative reproduced in the Koran and accepted by Muslims.

But in Talebzadeh's movie, God saves Jesus, depicted as a fair-complexioned man with long hair and a beard, from crucifixion and takes him straight to heaven.

"It is frankly said in the Koran that the person who was crucified was not Jesus" but Judas, one of the 12 apostles and the one the Bible holds betrayed Jesus to the Romans, he says. In his film, it is Judas who is crucified.

Islam sees Jesus as one of five great prophets - including Noah, Moses and Abraham - sent to earth to announce the coming of Mohammad, the final prophet who spread the religion of Islam. It respects Jesus' followers as "people of the book."

Tens of thousands of Christians live in Iran and, like Jews, are guaranteed religious freedoms under the constitution. Many of them are Armenian Christians, though their numbers have fallen sharply since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Every Christmas, Ahmadinejad and other officials lose no time in sending greetings to Christian leaders, including the pope, on what they describe as the "auspicious birthday of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him."

In this year's message, Ahmadinejad said that "peace, friendship and justice will be attained wherever the guidelines of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, are realized in the world."

Shiites, the majority in Iran, believe Jesus will accompany the Imam Mehdi when he reappears in a future apocalypse to save the world.

And Talebzadeh says the television version of his film will further explore the links between Jesus and the Mehdi - whose return Ahmadinejad has said his government, which came to power in 2005, is working to hasten.

Shiites believe the Mehdi's reappearance will usher in a new era of peace and harmony.

"We Muslims pray for the return [of Imam Mehdi] and Jesus is part of the return and the end of time," Talebzadeh says.

"Should we, as artists, stand idle until that time? Don't we have to make an effort?"

[Wingnut]

Uhhhhh...no, I don't think so.

quote: I'm betting the devil is in the details

Bingo.

[cannon_fodder]

Islam view Jesus as a great prophet, they try to follow his teachings with the other prophets.  But like Christians view the Jews and their religious laws - they do not think Christian teachings are always correct.  

I'd be interested to see the movie and get their take on it.

[rwarn17588]

<cf wrote:

But like Christians view the Jews and their religious laws - they do not think Christian teachings are always correct.

<end clip>

Neither do I. I never subscribed to the notion of inerrancy.

Skepticism when it comes to dealing with religion is a healthy thing. It forces one to study the Scriptures and other holy texts more, and helps keep one from becoming a nutty zealot.

There's no sense in becoming arrogant about a certain religion when there's no way to positively determine whether that religion is the true one.

[dggriffi]

Judaism,Christianity and Islam and theoretically in series with one leading up to the other.

They all disagree in doctrine with the "previous" dispensation.

i think that Judaism wanted a King of the romans and thus rejects Christ and Islam believes that Christ was a valid manifestation of god as is mohammed.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by dggriffi

...and Islam believes that Christ was a valid manifestation of god as is Mohamed.

It is my understanding that Islam does not believe Jesus was divine.  Nor was Mohamed. Mohamed was merely the vassal god felt deserving of transcribing the last and true word of god.

New Testament - last word of god
Koran - last word of god
Book of Mormon - last word of god

and incidentally Jews think the Old Testament is the most recent word of god delivered.
- - -

As an interesting side note, I read an article that research on historic Islamic tests has resumed after being lost following WWII.  While most Christians understand that the Bible on the shelf has changed over the years (oral tradition written down, translated, and outright edited for content repeatedly over ~1700 years) Muslims believe the Koran essentially fell from the sky as is around 700 AD.

Apparently the research indicates, not surprisingly, that such was not the case.  Different regions ended up with slightly different copies, copies after Mohamed's death varied by what region of the Caliphate you were in.  A heavy reliance on contemporary Christian, Jewish and other text.

In Islam, the Koran is the testament of God, it is what God gave his followers.  Proving fallacy would be akin to proving that Jesus did not rise from the dead.  Clearly this is not going over well.

[Wingnut]

quote: New Testament - last word of god, Koran - last word of god, Book of Mormon - last word of god

 

Jesus had the last word on the cross when he said "It is finished". Everything he needed to do was complete. There didn't need to be anyone else to claim that they did or had something that Jesus didn't.

[cannon_fodder]

Now I'm confused.  Is that a statement of your belief or are you categorically telling me that everyone else is wrong?  Or are you agreeing that Jesus' act is more important than the Bible as I indicated?  Or are you saying that the Bible is not held as the word of God?

Sorry for my daftness.

[Wingnut]

I didn't mean to confuse anyone.
What Jesus did on the cross was to shed blood for our sins so man could be reconciled back to God. When he died on the cross and said "it is finished", he had completed what he had to do for us. Certainly he rose from the dead 3 days later to show he defeted death and that we can have eternal life.
All throughout the Old Testament are references to Jesus' coming.
And, yes, the Bible is the Word of God. I believe it is fully accurate in that if God is wrong about things, how would we know what he was wrong about. No one had been able to show me an error (or contridiction) yet. Although everyone will try to now.

[dggriffi]

your opening your self up for some serious debate there.

As we do in fact know that various versions of the bible do contradict each other and has thus lead to the variation in Christian belief.

This has of course lead to such idea splits as the idea that god did not create evil and that god wants us to be wealthy.  These are of course newer ideas source in the latest revision of the bible.

[Wingnut]

Don't I know it.

From what I've seen and read, the Bible will interpet the Bible. What i mean is that there may be a place that says something that is understood to conflict with something else. By going back to the Greek or Hebrew meanings and other Biblical references clears things up. To my knowledge, no one has been able to produce an actual Biblical contridiction. And, no, I'm not saying I can answer everything, nor would I try. I'm not a scholar. It would take me a while.
If you wrote a really deep book, would you have conflicts and contridictions in it? I would hope not. If you did, you wouldn't be very credible or make any sense and no one would know what meant about anything. I don't believe the Bible is that way. Let's give God some credit. Various versions may say things differently, but should have the same meaning. I know of one version that does have some small translation errors in it which could lead to different beliefs.
Just my point of view and belief.

[rwarn17588]

<Wingnut wrote:

I'm not a scholar.

<end clip>

Your misspellings or poor sentence structure make that apparent. Sorry if I don't take seriously your notion that there are no contradictions in the Bible.

That doesn't even take into account the numerous archaic edicts.

Not to mention the passages that stretch credulity, to say the least. I do not believe that the entire world flooded with water, sparing only Noah and his family.  Nor do I believe that Methuselah lived to be over 900 years old. I could go on.

Let's face it: Faith is a highly personal thing that's enshrouded in mystery. Your mileage may vary, and to take a "my way and my way alone" stance is arrogant and presumptuous.

[Wingnut]

As I said, it's my point of view and belief.
I know no one else on this board ever misspells anything. There will always be someone better and smarter than me.

[cannon_fodder]

[disclaimer:  believe what you will - clearly I will not change your cores beliefs.  I encourage you to read this, but if reading contradictions in the Bible will upset you then it is best to skip it.]



Sorry, I really wasn't trying to set you up I promise.  I was just seeking clarification.  The linguistic issues go both ways, for as often as they resolve conflicts they create new ones.  Which emphasize my central point:  YOU DON'T KNOW.   By your own admission your version of the book, if not the original, is subject to the indiscretion and editing whims of man.  Seriously, if translation caused the myriad of problems following - what else is wrong?

To say you have no seen a contradiction to me, means you have not paid very close attention to the bible.  Kudos to most of the meaning in the book, but it certainly is not infallible.  Just about anything in the bible is contradicted resolutely (Though shalt not kill, vs. God said kill these people.  Though shalt not steal vs. steal from the Egyptians b4 you go).

I can't resist.  Sorry to those that will be offended and I'm not trying to drown you in quantity.  I really do find this interesting and that's why I've studied it (12 years of Catholic schools gave me plenty of Bible time).  (feel free to skip to the last two if you want. They make the point.])

The following are not really subject to translation issues - using King Jame's "God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33).  Oh, I beg to differ.

You can look up the following passages, or any you so chose at:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num.12:3;&version=9;

1) Lets start with an easy one you mentioned.  Jesus rose from the dead on the 3rd day.  Died on Friday evening.  Saturday evening(1), Sunday evening (2).  MATT 12:40 he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."  But he spent 2 nights and 2 days.

2) Sticking with your comments, Jesus last words were "it is  finished?"  One might think the Bible would agree on the focal point of the entire life of God, but nay:

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."


3) and when was that that he was Crucified?  Mark says "it was the third hour, and they crucified him." 15:25.  But according to John 19:14-15 the crowd of Jews was calling for his crucification during the 6th hour "Crucify Him, Crucify Him!" (a moot point if he is already crucified).  A minor point to be sure, a time line.  But clearly not a perfect book.

4) For that matter, they don't agree on what happened after:

Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (Judas kept the $)

Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field." (Judas threw the money back)

5) Even the quotes of Jesus conflict with themselves:

Matthew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire."   (don't insult people)

Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind." (Jesus insulting people)

6) Perhaps it is a moot point.  The savior will be a Son of David.  But David's line is traced through Joseph, who is not Jesus father. (not arguing it as fact, pointing out a flaw).

Much of the rest is just as confusing if you pay close attention - and much of it can not be explained by translation:
- - -
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah. (God told him to number the tribes)

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel. (Satan told him to number the tribes)
- - -

Gen 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."  (God tempted Abraham)

James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (God doesnt tempt)
- - -

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
- - -

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Jacob was Joseph's father)

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. (Heli was Joseph's father)
- - -

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

20,000 < 4,000.  This one seems very apperent.
- - -

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. (children are punished for their fathers ills)

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (children are not punished)
- - -

In Greek Genesis uses the plural for God... the Gods created the heavens and the seas.  In the 10 commandments we again see "Though halt have no other Gods before me" - grammatically allowing lesser gods.  Such instances are common throughout - in spite of a monotheistic insistence.

Deuteronomy 6:4 "The Lord our God is one Lord."
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image." (our being plural)
Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil." (one of US, again plural)


- - -

Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

Num.31:17, 18: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

That's not very meek now is it?  Bad mosses.  Though shalt not kill.
- - -







Those are some contradictions, now about about inaccuracies?


LEV 11:13-19 - And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.  (bats are not birds)

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (Rabbits do not chew their cud)

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. (insects do not have 4 feet, they have 6).


Lets move on to fatal flaws shall we?

These are from: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html

DT 6:5, MT 22:37, MK 12:30, LK 10:27
Love God.

DT 6:13, PS 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, PR 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, IS 8:13, LK 12:5, 1PE 2:17
Fear God.

1JN 4:18 There is no fear in love.

and finally:
- - -

PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true.

Except where he made the prophets lie for him (91 Kings 22:23), lied to Jeremiah (20:7), or admits to lying in Ezekiel 14:9.
- - -



I am supposed to fear God.  There is no love in fear.  So how can I love God?

And in the book I am told that God does not lie, a short distance from where God tells me he lies.

Pardon me if I'm confused. Again, sorry to everyone I surely offended.  I love this stuff.  Make for interesting discussion IMHO.

[rwarn17588]

^ Good stuff, cf.

Examples such as these are why I am repelled by religious absolutists, whether they're Islamists, Christianists or whatever.

"The things that you're liable to read in the Bible (or Quran), it ain't necessarily so ..."

Live your own lives, folks, and stop telling others how to live theirs -- especially if there's no way of telling whether yours is truly the right way.