Skip to comments.Cameron the Infidel
Posted on 02/27/2007 6:23:45 AM PST by .cnI redruM
James Cameron has truly moved beyond making sappy movies about ocean liner wrecks. He can now lay claim to being an idolater of the rankest order. Relying upon Pope Benedict to turn the other check in accordance with misinterpreted scripture, Cameron has accused the Gospels of inventing the resurrection the way Michael Moore does documentaries.
'TITANIC' director James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici, a filmmaker-archaeologist, are set to unveil three coffins this week that they say are those of Jesus, Mary and Mary Magdalene. In an coming documentary, Cameron and Jacobovici cite "scientific evidence" that the resurrection of Jesus never happened and that Jesus fathered a son named Judah with Mary Magdalene.
Such claims should, and surely will, be met with overwhelming skepticism. For example, the filmmakers use DNA tests to build their case - but whose DNA is being compared with whose? Did they swab the Holy Ghost? - The NY Post (27 February 2007)
While this disingenuous hucksterism disgusts the average, church-going American, it should shock no one. Dan Browns suspense novels rewrite enough church history to make it difficult to recognize whose religion he actually disparages. If his books werent set in The Vatican, it would be hard to distinguish the behavior of Dan Browns priest characters from that of Muqtada al-Sadr.
A growing number of Westerners resent Christianity, as portrayed by the modern intellectual elite. They increasingly want to conflate the local minister down the street with the collared child molester in Mystic River, or with the thuggish Vatican concierge in Dan Browns Angels and Demons. Those who dont relate to Christianity always seem to find ways of debasing it.
James Camerons latest publicity stunt takes this trend in a new direction. It suggests that Christ engaged in sexual intercourse with Mary of Magdalene and father a child named Judas. Cameron has even planned to run his documentary on the subject to coincide with Easter. This will endear him to Hollywood and to everyone who reads Andrew Sullivan because he derides others for being Christianist.
So a bunch of people in the West hate Christianity for imposing restrictions on their desires and for impugning behaviors that these individuals wish to indulge in. That chaffing against restraint is understandable, but not when Christianity is placed in context with the other religions throughout the world.
Christianity doesnt let you do whatever, whenever, but it also hasnt shot its heretics for several centuries. Thats not true of certain other religions. Just ask Jost Postens about Islamic editorial policies.
Cameron knows this. He chooses to accuse Christ of bastardies with economic discretion and an eye out for his wellbeing. He expects to make a pile of money. He expects to only receive criticism from flyover land, which doesnt keep you off the red carpet near Hollywood and Highland anyhow.
People will call Cameron provocative, audacious, an iconoclast. He doesnt show audacity, he shows calculated cynicism. Cameron will grow very rich off this pathetic stunt, but he will never be fit to wash Salmon Rushdies jock strap.
He'll make $100M off a widely-derided Discovery-channel pseudo-documentary? I don't think so.
Cameron will reap his rewards for this -- both in this world ($$$$$ and the praise of anti-Christian scumbags who dominate the left and Hollywood) and the next...
When is Mr. Cameron going to go after Mohammed?
Perhaps the press should be reminded that Cameron's claims also constitute apostasy against the muslim prophet Isa and his mother Mary
Pathetic, why? Do you think he forged the ossuaries? Or do you think they're for real, but that he's wrong to bring them to the public?
There are quite a few composition errors in this piece, including several out-of-place apostrophes. And the jockstrap image is unoriginal and overused.
Not to worry, I'm sure Cameron's next project will be all about the REAL Mohamed.
Cameron should ask Van Gogh of the Netherlands what happens when one insults a religion...oh, that's right...Van Gogh insulted Muslims and got his throat slit and an explanation pinned to his chest with the bloody knife.
Wonder what infidel will be publishing a book or making a movie attacking Jesus next year during Lent? It's as predictable as springtime that the msm, including Fox, will give them free wall-to-wall publicity, and Christians roll over and take it, so why not?
Don't wait up for Godot.
Probably all of the above. There is as likely a chance that someone forged the names centuries ago as not. Even if they are real, they prove nothing. He almost certainly is engaging in Christian-bashing as the blogger suggests. I find it interesting that people who buy into this believe certain parts of the Bible if it supports part of their story (such as the existence of Mary Magdalene, the fact that Jesus's mother was named Mary and that Jesus was reputedly the son of Joseph the carpenter, etc). "The rest of the story" is conveniently jetiisoned. It seems to me that if this story was approached from a point of view that denies the gospel accounts of Christ's life, that one should assume nothing about Jesus, including who his family members were or who might have been His paramour. If you do this, then you are left with a tomb with some bones of a guy named Jesus and some other people.
However, if non-believers find comfort in this discovery, it is of no concern to me.
Cameron doesn't even have the onions to go after Scientology.
If that were all there was to it, it wouldn't be worth calling attention to it. My belief is that this is a different family, but the combination of names does seem unlikely enough to justify the attention.
Very few people doubt that Jesus was a historical person, and nobody can discount his importance, so if these are relics of the man and his family, they deserve close scrutiny. Look at the attention the Shroud of Turin has received over the centuries.
While we're on the subject, does the "Jesus" ossuary actually contain any bones? If there's one historical fact about Jesus that almost everyone can agree upon, it's that he was crucified by the Romans. The bones ought to show evidence of that, if they're for the right man.
And if the box is empty...
It's like thinking that a set of modern gravestones with John, Mary, and James on them are related to any particular individual within the same century named John, Mary, or James. Or assuming two people named Smith are related. Highly unlikely.
He could take a DNA sample from the eucharist. :-P
Actually, he has nothing but supposition that is leakier than the Titanic.