(November 4, 2003)
to "The DaVinci Code" Special, aired on ABC, 11/3/03
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.
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
Bottom line is: "THE
, by author Dan Brown is
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,
figures, as does Brown's book. But why would a news feature fiction
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
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
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,
Furthermore, it is my opinion is that there are no
accidents concerning what is reported by our news and what is
viable programming by our commercial media. My research shows
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
the recent release of the movie "The Gospel of John" (featuring a blatant non-biblical
inclusion of a female disciple at the Last
in order to further muddy what truth actually exists at
regarding the prevailing Judeo-Christian concept of Jesus Christ-- the
one presented in (all accepted
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
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
trying to outwardly dismiss Him. Satan could have said "Don't be
silly--God doesn't exist." But Satan instead chose a more
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
Did you know that high-dollar promotional firms sometimes get paid
$$$$$$$$$ 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--
Some documented examples of WHOPPERS generated by our
media as truth, are:
--1. "Saddam orders babies
thrown (killed) from
incubators" in Kuwait (1990)
FALSE -- 2. "Satellite
images show 250, 000 Kuwaiti troops
the border of Iraq"; we must declare
FALSE -- 3. The whole Private Jessica Lynch Saga
FALSE -- 4. Iraq/Saddam owns WMDs
"He (Saddam Hussein) has
not developed any significant
capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to
project conventional power against his neighbors."
~ Colin Powell,
February 24, 2001
"Saddam does not control
the northern part of the country.
We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not
~ Condoleezza Rice, April 2001
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)
"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
now know it--had to pass through a rigorous validation procedure of
historical, archaeological, textual, and corroborative
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
Thomas (not surprisingly, the
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
(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
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
writings as authenticated, rather than just merely "accepted", creates
"cognitive dissonance" in the reader because such fictional work
by differing from it.
The canonized Bible:
King David --(Psalms 111:10) The fear of the LORD is the
beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do His
commandments: His praise endureth for ever.
King Solomon --(Proverbs 1:7) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of
knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
(Proverbs 9:10) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and
the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
(Proverbs 15:33) The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and
before honor is humility.
Jesus Christ -- (Matthew 6:33, Luke 12:31) "But, seek ye first the
Kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things will be
added unto you."
Jesus Christ -- "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
(Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom 6:Verse 12) Wisdom is radiant and
unfading, and she is easily discerned by those who love her, and is
found by those who seek her.
(v.13) - She hastens to make herself known to those who desire her.
(v.14) - He who rises early to seek her will have no difficulty, for he
will find her sitting at his gates.
(v.15) - To fix one's thought on her is perfect understanding, and he
who is vigilant on her account will soon be free from care,
(v.16) - because she goes about seeking those worthy of her, and she
graciously appears to them in their paths, and meets them in every
(v.17) - The beginning of wisdom is the most sincere desire for
instruction, and concern for instruction is love of her,
(v.18) - and love of her is the keeping of her laws, and giving heed to
her laws is assurance of immortality,
(v.19) - and immortality brings one near to God;
(v.20) - so the desire for wisdom leads to a kingdom.
(v.21) - Therefore if you delight in thrones and scepters, O monarchs
over the peoples, honor wisdom, that you may reign for ever.
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
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
Well, no wonder few Catholics read their bibles.
I know lots of folks from other Christian denominations who have never
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
(aka, Gospel of Jesus Christ)
If it truly wasn't "Good News", why wasn't the New Testament just
"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
I personally have at least 17
different English translations of the Bible including two different New
(the official Roman Catholic Bible). Regardless of the
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
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
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
including giving up His life so that we don't have to pay God's
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
Next, the metaphor found in our English Bibles
to describe Jesus' disciples on earth--the true "bride" of Christ, that
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
She is the one
who mattered more to Him than His own life. He needed no
Jesus was sanctified, or "set apart" by the Father, for that job He
here to do on earth. There is absolutely NO historical
evidence--not even a little to support either the possibility of His
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
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
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
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
well-made? NO. A show stays on because it sells product
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
(owned by Paramount Pictures, Inc). A fine news program,
eh? Wherein lies the difference?
Wake up America, Jesus Christ claims within His Only
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
fulfillment of His prophesy every single day.
But, hey, Dorothy--whatever you do, don't look behind the curtain...the
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."
(Source: "Labor's Untold Story", by
Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)
Richard M. Cohen, Senior
Producer of CBS
political news, stated:
"We are going to impose our agenda on
the coverage by
dealing with issues and subjects that we choose."
Richard Salant, former
President of CBS
"Our job is to give people not what
they want, but what we
decide they ought to have." 
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
vacuous than "Al Capone's Vault."
Why am I not surprised.
or Comments -- write me HERE!
(P.S. Go rent "Wag
-- then think
Return now to the Hymn of the Week Page in Betty's Website.
Read more words HERE
Go back to her TABLE of
1. Both quotes: "Economic Solutions,", by
Kershaw, Quality Press; Boulder,