I am increasingly incredulous at what is proffered as "news" by our commercial media--the alphabet TV networks--ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX.  Last night's ABC Special presented a new novel--fiction, folks--though indistinguishable from non-fiction in last night's presentation by the narrator's constant use of the word "book" instead of "novel"-- truth implied--in order to present and to support the possibility of an alternative theory concerning Jesus Christ. 

For what? 

While my many objections can and will be expounded on regarding such a notion, the fact remains that such a notion remains but a theory.  The worst kind of theory; however--one entirely absent of factual support. 

So why would commercial television spend an entire hour on pure conjecture, leaving us with, at best, yet another "Al Capone's Vault" -- a true red herring, a waste of time, the worst kind of entertainment, and blatant obfuscation of truth--my guess is, to sell product.

Bottom line is: "THE DAVINCI CODE", by author Dan Brown is fiction;  not history. 

Conversely, the Bible is the most historically and archaeologically accurate, most authenticated book ever to have been written. 

To give fiction validity, however, ABC's production contained references to authentic, historical figures, as does Brown's book.  But why would a news feature fiction as if it were fact?   Does ABC own shares in this book, or have some other vested interest in it? 

Maybe so.  But I believe such a special is more like an endorsement of theory--an infomercial of sorts, more about insinuating doubt into a powerful concept held by the public--the concept of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and God.  Perhaps in the same way that reality shows are so popular, the public will watch such a program in order to stimulate our darkest hopes/fears--that Jesus really wasn't God after all, but instead only as frail and flawed and needy as we are. Such a view would help to justify our self-centricity, wouldn't it?

Furthermore, it is my opinion is that there are no accidents concerning what is reported by our news and what is considered viable programming by our commercial media.  My research shows that we do not tell the media what we want to see, hear, and buy; the media tells us what we should want.  And last ngiht's show was a carefully strategized media effort, coupled with the recent release of the movie "The Gospel of John" (featuring a blatant non-biblical inclusion of a female disciple at the Last Supper) in order to further muddy what truth actually exists at all, regarding the prevailing Judeo-Christian concept of Jesus Christ-- the one presented in (all accepted versions) of the Bible; the One prophesied Son of God and God, fulfilled.

While not directly denying the truth, offering conjecture (theory) as reasonably as one would offer fact, in this case, merely makes the truth appear less clear. 

Last night for one hour ABC questioned, without explanation, the biblical concept of an obedient Messiah in a cheesy presentation closely resembling Geraldo Rivera's now infamous exposé, "Al Capone's Vault"--fraught with speculation, fraught with purely emotional slant (why wouldn't a married, husbandly Jesus be more able to sympathize with us humans, or why would the church forbid women to have an active role in it) .  This flimsy ploy is the oldest manipulation on earth, it is a philosophy known to every defense attorney on earth--discredit facts by creating reasonable doubt as to the reliability of the facts.  Johnny Cochran proved to be a master of this technique.  

So did Satan in the Garden of Eden.  He did not attempt to deny God's presence or the rules, just to discredit Him by diminishing His words.  Creating doubt as to their veracity was way more effective than trying to outwardly dismiss Him.  Satan could have said "Don't be silly--God doesn't exist."  But Satan instead chose a more appealing notion, he simply counterfeits God's words, thus diminishing the prospect of their consequences, in order to persuade....."You will not surely die." (Genesis 3:4) 

In the same way, ABC suggested that Jesus wasn't who He claimed to be, by clouding facts with hyperbole and conjecture.

Did you know that high-dollar promotional firms sometimes get paid unfathomable $$$$$$$$$ just to dream up fiction to present as fact in order to "persuade" the willing-to-believe-whatever-we-hear-on-CNN American public?  Who finances this BS, you ask?  

Sometimes the Pentagon does--

The source most oft-quoted by the interviewed author of "DaVinci" (although little was made of this) was a book that biblical scholars throughout the ages could not give any factual, historical, or literary credence to.  Such books have always existed.  In this case many are known as the "Lost Books of the Bible" or "The Hidden Books of the Bible" (Apocrypha) or the "Gnostic (Greek, for knowledge) Gospels."   The author's predominate source appeared to be the Gospel of Thomas. In order to be canonized as "biblical", the 66 books of the Bible canonized in 367 AD--scripture as we now know it--had to pass through a rigorous validation procedure of historical, archaeological, textual, and corroborative scrutiny.   http://www.wlsessays.net/files/GeigerCanon.pdf

Most people are not aware of the rigid criteria imposed on all of the now canonized books.  The data excerpted in support of the DaVinci Code, however, was not from a factual source, but a theoretical one--the dubious Gospel of Thomas (not surprisingly, the "doubting" disciple).  Having read T.G.O.T.--an incredible little flight of fancy--myself, several times, I can assure you of the following--T.G.O.T. is neither "good news" (Greek meaning of "gospel") nor does it echo any biblical themes consistent from Genesis to Revelation.

The original scholars who drew up the list of what was to be canonized knew this, and because T.G.O.T. and those other allegedly "hidden" books which were floating around concurrently did not rise to the criteria met by canonized books, such "hidden" books were summarily rejected.  That is of course until the Roman Catholic Church, on April 8, 1546 AD, at the Council of Trent, decided to include one set of these (The Apocrypha) into its already canonized scripture. 

Any Bible scholar worth his or her mettle, however, upon study of these books will immediately realize that such writing diverges diametrically from original canonized scripture in tenor and tone.  To foster such writings as authenticated, rather than just merely "accepted", creates "cognitive dissonance" in the reader because such fictional work diminishes biblical consistency by differing from it. 

I may not be a biblical scholar, but I sense a conflict between these two sources of information concerning the Almighty. How can we know which we should believe?

A thought I oft remember: in order to control people, keep them ignorant (prevent acquisition of personal Bibles), keep them dependent (don't rely on your wits to interpret the Bible--only the church can interpret scripture), and keep them afraid (anyone who personally interprets scripture is deemed "anathema"--accursed by the church; destined for hell).

Well, no wonder few Catholics read their bibles.

I know lots of folks from other Christian denominations who have never read a bible at all. 

Then how can one know when one is being presented with a fairy tale?

Why WAS the New Testament referred to as the "Good News" of Jesus Christ?  (aka, Gospel of Jesus Christ)

If it truly wasn't "Good News", why wasn't the New Testament just called "More Stuff for You to Have to Learn" or "More Work For You to Have to Do?" or "More Guilt" or "More Fear"? 

I think to many, that is what the Bible has come to represent.  And to those folks--those people who, whether in fear or indifference, have not even read currently available English versions of scripture--ABC network didn't do anything wrong.  Why, the author of "The DaVinci Code" might even be right about Jesus.....

Remember, if one doesn't know the truth to begin with, how can one discern fiction?

I personally have at least 17 different English translations of the Bible including two different New American Bibles (the official Roman Catholic Bible).  Regardless of the translation/version, throughout the New Testament Jesus Christ repeatedly states to "all who have ears," that He has NOT COME TO DO HIS OWN WILL, but the WILL OF HIS FATHER WHO SENT HIM.  (John 6:38)

Nowhere do any of my translations suggest that Jesus was lonely and took a wife.

According to Judeo-Christian scripture God, however, originally provided man (Adam) with a "helper" because God did not want Adam to be "lonely". (Genesis 2:18-23)


Jesus Christ, conversely stated--"...I AM not alone, the Father who sent me is with Me." (John 8:16)


Man was originally created by God in His likeness (image), but not given God's nature.  A doll may be made in the likeness of a child, but has not a child's nature.  Man's nature has always been to think of self first, as clearly portrayed in the Garden of Eden. 

God's nature, on the other hand, is to do what is best for us, His children. 

Often, we haven't enjoyed what was best for ourselves so much as what was bad for us.

Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of God and God, and the accepted canonized Bible demonstrates how He did indeed accomplish what was best for us, including giving up His life so that we don't have to pay God's ultimate price for our selfishness. ( "For the wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23)  

It is not only non-historical but it is unscriptural to suggest that Jesus took a wife and had children.  First, Jesus didn't need a wife on earth because He fulfilled God's first commandment--"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your strength..."   Jesus therefore loved His heavenly Father with all His heart, taking up His own life with the fulfillment of the first AND second commandments.  

Next, the metaphor found in our English Bibles to describe Jesus' disciples on earth--the true "bride" of Christ, that is, His church--those who seek God's Kingdom as well the will of God--explains why Jesus would not have a literal human wife--He was already married!  Jesus was "husband" to the one He came to save--His church. (Revelation 19:1-10)  She is the one who mattered more to Him than His own life.  He needed no other.

Jesus was sanctified, or "set apart" by the Father, for that job He came here to do on earth.  There is absolutely NO historical evidence--not even a little to support either the possibility of His literal marriage to any person on earth, or His paternity.  Such notions only appeal to our imagination and satisfy our ego-driven desire to diminish His divine glory.  And it also diminishes the power of the historical truth--multiple independent records of Jesus' suffering and death (on behalf of liars, murderers, thieves, and even all who would later discredit Him).

 I am completely disgusted with "The DaVinci Code" and its proponents, including ABC news, but not surprised, that, in order to sell product--TV shows, including the news exist--solely for the purpose of selling product: cars, soap, beer, insurance; whatever--and that, in my opinion, is why ABC spent an hour of our time promoting this book.

 Just remember, all television programming is generated for the purpose of making money for advertisers--if shows don't generate viewers, shows get canceled.  Why???  Do shows stay on for years because they are well-made?  NO. A show stays on because it sells product.  Period.  And our news programs are conceived by the same kinds of Hollywood wizards and powers that also manufacture Harry Potter, and The Matrix Revisited, Nightmare on Elm Street et al.  In fact, last night's program was promoted and preceded by a "news" trailer on ABC's own "Entertainment Tonight" (owned by Paramount Pictures, Inc).  A fine news program, eh?  Wherein lies the difference?

Wake up America, Jesus Christ claims within His Only Holy Handbook to Survival, that in the last days men would be lovers of lies, so much so that a lie--any lie--would be preferred to truth. (Matthew24:read all; Luke 5:all; John 8:all)

At least as far as the alphabet TV media appears to go, we are witnessing fulfillment of His prophesy every single day. 

But, hey, Dorothy--whatever you do, don't look behind the curtain...the media is indeed great and powerful.

One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:
 
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

Last ngiht, Elizabeth Vargas and ABC News led viewers on a one-hour long wild goose chase, the end result of which proved even more vapid and vacuous than "Al Capone's Vault."