another one of those Jesus shows

Last night I made dinner and sat down in front of the boob tube, hoping to catch some sports or a Neckcar race or something to watch while eating, as I often do. I happened to come across one of those "examining Jesus" shows that seem to be cropping up with increasing frequency nowadays. Every now and then I'll hear something good about one of these things. You know, whenever they actually do a respectable job of presenting the evidence and arguments on all sides in the discussion. Such doesn't happen but every once in a while. But, I decided to give this one a shot and see what it had to offer.

It was basically a special on Dan Brown's book, "The Da Vinci Code," which all of us have no doubt heard a lot about. The producers basically gave an overview of the book and then proceeded to set up its story as an alternative to Scripture's account of Jesus' life. And they sure made one heck of a pathetic case. I was very disappointed in the kind of "journalism" and "investigation" that went into making this piece. They used stand-alone historical evidence, such as manuscripts of supposedly "rejected" gospels found only in Egypt (but not in any other area occupied by the early church, apparently, as saying so would have bolstered their case) and firsthand accounts from contemporaries in south France, that could not be corroborated by other historical evidence. They also argued for the possibility of some sort of cryptic messages hidden in some of Da Vinci's works.

Are you kidding me? This stuff is on national television and being promoted as a legitimate discussion? One of the biggest no-no's in research of any kind is using evidence that can't be validated or backed up by any other evidence. This is true of any historical account, including that of the Bible. If the Bible were just a bunch of single manuscripts found over the years and thrown together to form some sort of supposedly authoritative book, would it really have much influence of any kind? Would it be widely read by any stretch of meaning? I don't think so either. To set something as well-researched and well-corroborated as the Bible that has stood the test of time and challenges against a tiny amount of evidence thrown in with a generous helping of speculation, and then try to treat the two as equals worthy of the same consideration, is absurd. I'm not saying disregard the entire "alternative" argument without examination--all arguments ought to be judged on their own merit--but you certainly can't give it the same weight as what is clearly a much stronger case with much more supporting evidence. I think the premise of the show was flawed and it was doomed to failure before they started putting it together.

But, if nothing else, it continues to prove how far some people will go to cast doubt and controversy upon Christianity. And I think that's what this is all about. Do you see such hack jobs about Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism on network television? Of course not. And not that you should--any religion deserves serious and honest consideration and ought not be ridiculed and mocked on purpose by any program. But it seems you never have to wait long to see such bunk about Jesus or the Bible.

The bottom line I took away is, anyone who can buy into what was presented last night and actually believe much of the story has absolutely no ground on which to stand and decry Christianity as false and unproven. This reminds me of those staunch athiest evolutionists who lap up a theory that would turn science as we know it on its head and leave so much of the world's formation to statistically impossible odds, and then argue that Christians believe in that which they can't prove and have too much faith in the unknown. Give me a break. I have far more respect for the guy who rejects Christianity but doesn't adhere to any competing claim* than the guy who refuses to accept Christianity on the basis of certain points but swears by an alternate set of beliefs that fails the same criteria. While I would disagree with both, at least the first is consistent. The latter is simply confused or too closed-minded to consider both sides honestly.

*I'm not convinced this is actually possible, as a belief in nothing at all is still a belief in something. If that doesn't makes sense it's because it shouldn't. We all believe in something whether we admit it or not. Kinda like those who make the (absolute) claim that there is no absolute truth. But there are postmodernists who think this way so let's humor them for the sake of demonstration.