Islamic Jesus hits Iranian Movie Screens

www.breitbart.com...

A director who shares the ideas of Iran's hardline 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 like Mel Gibson's 2004 blockbuster "The Passion of the Christ," which he praised as admirable but quite simply "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," he said, referring to two key differences: Islam sees Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God, and does not believe he was crucified.

Gibson's film is a very good film....but the story is wrong...it was not like that...Islam...does not believe [Jesus] was crucified.

This has always been one of my favorite (as in laughable) things about Islam. By saying this, they are going against the grain of secular, biblical, and extrabiblical history. We all know the Bible clearly mentions Jesus being crucified. It is doubtful the eye witness authors of the Bible would have chosen crucifixion, the most humiliating and shameful method of punishment in those days, if it were not true. To "create" a God everyone would want to follow, death by crucifixion is not the logical choice.

We also know the early extrabiblical authors and eye witnesses testify to the crucifixion but let's focus in on secular/pagan authors who had nothing to lose or gain by quoting just the facts. Here are some of the most famous:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... [they] worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws..." -Lucian of Samosata

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate..." - Tacitus of Rome (So much for the "Jesus never died" theory)

"Jesus accordingly exhibited after His death only the appearance of wounds received on the cross, and was not in reality so wounded as He is described to have been." -Celsus of Rome. Although he tries to explain Jesus' resurrection by using the "swoon theory," even he knows there was a crucifixion.

"...and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross..." -Josephus

So, am I to believe Mohammad who came along six centuries later or the general consensus of earlier authors who can at least agree that a crucifixion did take place? So, we have yet another movie trying to attack Christianity. I can't say I'm ever surprised.

[edit on 1/14/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
This has always been one of my favorite (as in laughable) things about Islam.

ah, patronization. One of the great pillars of religion in general, but Christianity specifically.

We all know the Bible clearly mentions Jesus being crucified. It is doubtful the authors of the Bible would have chosen crucifixion, the most humiliating and shameful method of punishment in those days, if it were not true.

I do not follow the same logic as you. Just because it's plausible, does not mean it's true.

We also know the early extrabiblical authors and eye witnesses testify to the crucifixion

No, "we" don't know this at all. You are implying it, but there has not been any definitive proof of any eye witnesses at THE crucifixion.

reply to post by AshleyD


No, but you'll believe the stories written by men hundreds of years after his death? What's the difference except you "Believe" one to be true?

Where's your nail in the coffin proof he died or was crucified?

Originally posted by scientist
No, "we" don't know this at all. You are implying it, but there has not been any definitive proof of any eye witnesses at THE crucifixion.

The general consensus of early testimony is that the Gospels of John, Matthew, and Mark were all eye witness Gospels. But as for definitive proof we cannot provide for something that occurred 2,000 years ago. But to say none of this ever happened or it most likely did not happen is not logical. It is more logical to believe the variety of early sources that agree on the crucifixion.

If not, then we need to question the history surrounding the lives of Socrates and Alexander the Great. Socrates does not have any surviving personal works- what has been passed down to us has been due to the work of his students. Everything we know about Alexander should come into question as well (and it often does) as no historian wrote about him during his lifetime (the biographies were written up to five centuries later).

There were no eyewitness accounts of Alexander like we have with Jesus. To me, it's nothing more than laziness when people bring up such arguments. Not to mentioned biased. Prove to me Socrates was really poisoned. We can't. But we can logically give the benefit of the doubt to the sources. We cannot prove Jesus was crucified (without a time machine) but we can logically believe He was. To believe one but scrutinize the other is nonsense.

Originally posted by Stalks in Shadows
No, but you'll believe the stories written by men hundreds of years after his death?

Hundreds of years? Most secular and Christian scholars agree the New Testament writings were completed during the century of Jesus' life (1st century A.D.) and not hundreds of years later.

[edit on 1/14/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by Quazga
In a way, Islam only let's Jesus in through the back door and still puts it's own relgion at the top of so-called true relgions. And yet Irans flag now has a symbol more similar to a winged serpent or red dragon, than what they call a tulip flower. Isn't that Iranic?

If you look at Islam and the Koran, there are striking similarities between it and the OT... I have disbanded, with exceptions of the Ten Commandments,the OT from my personal belief system because, quite honestly, I think it paints a pretty hideous and inaccurate picture ff what God is like.

With that being said, to say that there are no parallels between Islam and mainstream Christianity is an act of living in ignorance.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

With that being said, to say that there are no parallels between Islam and mainstream Christianity is an act of living in ignorance.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by SpeakerofTruth]

I don't think that anyone was saying that. There are clearly parallels. The question is, what parallels are you seeing? Are you ascribing to mainstream Christianity some of the negative attributes of fundamentalist Islam?

Eric

Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by AshleyD
This has always been one of my favorite (as in laughable) things about Islam.

ah, patronization. One of the great pillars of religion in general, but Christianity specifically.

That’s interesting. Condemning patronizing behavior while engaging in it.

We all know the Bible clearly mentions Jesus being crucified. It is doubtful the authors of the Bible would have chosen crucifixion, the most humiliating and shameful method of punishment in those days, if it were not true.

I do not follow the same logic as you. Just because it's plausible, does not mean it's true.

Did you read the part where the poster said 'It is doubtful...'? Clearly they were not speaking in absolutes like you are insinuating.


Eric

reply to post by EricD


Ah, thanks Eric. I didn't even see that remark but will clarify now.

Originally posted by scientist
ah, patronization. One of the great pillars of religion in general, but Christianity specifically.

I'm sorry if my above comment was being patronizing as that was not my intention. But it is a pet peeve of mine when I constantly hear "History! Historians! Historical Records!" But if we use historical records to verify the Christian faith or Christian history it all comes down to, "Well, that isn't proof." I could steal their logic and say the Spanish Inquisition and Crusades never happened and that the historians who recorded the atrocities were ignorant liars. But I'm not that dense.

If you listen to the unbiased sources, they agree a crucifixion took place. So why should we believe a man who came along six centuries later instead of secular historians that had no vested interested in Jesus one way or the other? It's not for the sake of being patronizing I think it is laughable. It is downright illogical. Hope that helps.

[edit on 1/14/2008 by AshleyD]

Oh God , Lord , Jesus...H ...........
I hate religion so bad its just gotten crazy.
its nuts, If I ever find the guys that are manipulating
us I swear I`m gonna B-slap some one.

RELIGION IS A POISON.......A WEAPON.....A JAIL......

we have had enough with the world ripping itself apart because of RELIGION.

Oh God , Lord , Jesus...H ...........

Sounds cool.

Eastern religions, whether Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam etc. all have kinder views of Christ than we can find from people in the west.

People laugh at Christianity and 'Jesus freaks' because they said he was the son of God (literally) and that everyone will go to hell if they don't accept him.

I think most Christians are more comfortable with the idea that Jesus was a man, a prophet, and wanted us all to realize that we are sons of God.


Really though, what sticks out to me is how many people in the west straight-up hate Christians and think Jesus is a fairytale. If you look at the Middle east people there have a MUCH more temperate view of the whole thing. Kind of sheds light on how jaded and atheistic western society has become... we are less civil with religious ideas than the very Muslims that have been painted in a bad light.

Originally posted by Maya432
Oh God , Lord , Jesus...H ...........
I hate religion so bad its just gotten crazy.
its nuts, If I ever find the guys that are manipulating
us I swear I`m gonna B-slap some one.

RELIGION IS A POISON.......A WEAPON.....A JAIL......

we have had enough with the world ripping itself apart because of RELIGION.

Oh God , Lord , Jesus...H ...........

Chill out bro.

I'm not 'religious' but you'll see me defending religion on the regular. You have nothing to hate but all the maniacs who hide behind religion to start wars, turn people against eachother etc.

Although, I think that is what most people hate. The religious manipulation...

Religious ideas themself are supposed to bring people together and accept everyone, whether or not they believe in God or whether or not they accept Christ as savior etc. Real religion teaches that it doesn't matter, we're all part of the same thing.

But yeah, you hate the bad side of religion and so does everyone else. The problem is this hate is out of control and is aimed at EVERYONE who wants to believe in One God or spiritual unity etc.

It's not fair.

Originally posted by Maya432
Oh God , Lord , Jesus...H ...........
I hate religion so bad its just gotten crazy.
its nuts, If I ever find the guys that are manipulating
us I swear I`m gonna B-slap some one.

RELIGION IS A POISON.......A WEAPON.....A JAIL......

we have had enough with the world ripping itself apart because of RELIGION.

Oh God , Lord , Jesus...H ...........

Listen to yourself, do you honestly believe that religion is the poison? Because if this is true and the word gets out to people as angry about it as you are the world is in a lot more trouble.

Wow - People get passionate about their religion, don't they? One would never guess we all came from the same cosmos. I believe that history eventually becomes religion (sort of like ancestor worship) but spirituality is the divine link to the spiritual world.

It is too bad that most of the writings by women who were closest to Jesus were destroyed by the early Orthodox Christian Churches. We would probably have learned much more detail about the true life of Christ. Having said that though I try to remind myself that Jesus said he came to bring life and more abundantly. So why be preoccupied with his death?

If the truth were known early Muslims were probably more closely associated with Christians than what one might think. For example it is a known fact that Syrian Knights ended up in Germany and that many Byzantine (Eastern Orthodox Catholics) ended up within Muslim territories after the Great Schism of 1054. Thus meshing into each others cultures.

Originally posted by bonijean
If the truth were known early Muslims were probably more closely associated with Christians than what one might think.

Amen, brother. We call it monotheism for a reason. One God. All people can unite under that idea no matter what religion. And honestly, they should.

Originally posted by AshleyD
This has always been one of my favorite (as in laughable) things about Islam. By saying this, they are going against the grain of secular, biblical, and extrabiblical history.

This is what I have found to be the most troubling thing about ignorance (no jibe at you, either, just a point in general). Have you even looked into what Islam says about Jesus? Do you know? Or are you just going on against it because it is the 'enemy' or the 'other'?

Islam doesn't deny that a crucifixion took place. Islam doesn't even deny that the crucifixion of Jesus was attempted. What islam says is that God put their schemes to nothing, and saved Jesus from being killed on the cross by replacing him with (what is traditionally considered to be) Judas.

Originally posted by AshleyD
So, am I to believe Mohammad who came along six centuries later or the general consensus of earlier authors who can at least agree that a crucifixion did take place?

Don't believe either. Check out what is ACTUALLY BEING SAID before attacking it. That isn't unreasonable, is it?

Originally posted by AshleyD
So, we have yet another movie trying to attack Christianity. I can't say I'm ever surprised.

Considering that Jesus is an islamic figure just as much as he is a Christian figure, I don't see how it is an insult in the slightest. They want to make a movie about him, as they see him.

Originally posted by babloyi
This is what I have found to be the most troubling thing about ignorance (no jibe at you, either, just a point in general). Have you even looked into what Islam says about Jesus? Do you know? Or are you just going on against it because it is the 'enemy' or the 'other'?

No, I'm aware they see Jesus as a good guy and inspired Prophet. As NWO rightfully said, Islam has a more pleasant view of Jesus than most non-Christian Westerners.

Islam doesn't deny that a crucifixion took place. Islam doesn't even deny that the crucifixion of Jesus was attempted. What islam says is that God put their schemes to nothing, and saved Jesus from being killed on the cross by replacing him with (what is traditionally considered to be) Judas.

Alright, but that goes against what we know about recorded history. I disagree with the quoted section in the O.P. where it says Christians are wrong in that Jesus was crucified. Again, how does someone who came along centuries later know more than the original eye witnesses, Gospel writers, and secular historians?

Considering that Jesus is an islamic figure just as much as he is a Christian figure, I don't see how it is an insult in the slightest. They want to make a movie about him, as they see him.

I'm not sitting over here crying about it but it is an insult due to the fact to deny Jesus' crucifixion, ignore the records, and flat out say we're wrong is basically saying they know what is going on better than those who were closer to the events than they were.

Islam has to take the Crucifixion away from Jesus to strip his divinity and to make Mohammad even more important or special. Because Mohammad got to fly on white ponies to magical lands and heaven itself, Jesus resurrecting in spirit form after dying on a cross would be pretty spectacular, even more so than riding flying white ponies in the arabian night..