Islamic Film About Jesus - But is it Credible?

"Jesus, the Spirit of God" Presents the Muslim View of Jesus - But is it in Line With the Evidence?

ABC News:  Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:32pm AEDT.  A director who shares the ideas of Iran's hard line President has produced what he says is the first film giving an Islamic view of Jesus Christ, in a bid to show "common ground" between Muslims and Christians. 

For a summary of the movie and the film makers remarks, please see the following links:

ABC News (AU):  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/16/2139706.htm
ABC News Entertainment: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4297085&page=1

"Jesus, the Spirit of God" - An Islamic Answer to "The  Passion of the Christ"

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". He has praised that film as admirable, but quite simply "wrong".  Really.  

Says the film maker:  "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.

According to the Film, Jesus is NOT Crucified

According to the film (and contrary to what the Bible records), God saves Jesus from crucifixion and takes him straight to heaven.

"It is frankly said in the Koran that the person who was crucified was not Jesus" but Judas - one of the 12 Apostles and the one the Bible says betrayed Jesus to the Romans.  In his film, it is Judas who is crucified.

Jesus Spoke About Muhammad "Many Times"?

According to the film maker: "If you listen to what Jesus said, Jesus talked about the Prophet Mohammad, many, many times. And it was eliminated in the Gospels and the Bibles that [made it through] history. In 325, the Council of Nice was out to destroy all the other Gospels. One of those Gospels was the Gospel of Barnabas, which I used in great detail."

Examining the Claims Made By the Islamic Jesus Movie

Thus we have the following startling claims made in the movie:

1.  Jesus was not crucified, and instead was was saved the night of the last supper and taken directly up to Heaven.   

2.  Another - Judas Iscariot, one of the 12 apostles - was crucified in His place.  The film maker offers evidence in the Koran for this, as well as The Gospel of Barnabas.

3.  Jesus was only a prophet of God - nothing more.  He did not claim to be, nor does the evidence point to Him as the Son of God.

4.  Jesus allegedly "talked about Mohammad many, many times."  What if any supporting evidence is there for this assertion? 

5.  The producer refers in great detail to a so-called "Gospel of Barnabas".  Did such a gospel exist at the time of the New Testament gospels, and can it be trusted as an authoritative document?

The question becomes, are these assertions valid, or without merit?  Which sources do we go to for the facts, the evidence?  The description of events in the Quran, a document revered by millions of Muslims but created centuries after the time of Jesus, or early Christian documents and other early historical records?

What do the facts indicate?  And what about the so-called "The Gospel of Barnabas"  Was this a first century document, like the other Gospels?  Or an imitation, produced much later?

What Does the Historical Evidence Indicate?

Let's take a look at each of these assertions, and examine the historical facts to see if they hold up under scrutiny.

Claim #1:  Jesus of Nazareth was not crucified.  He taken up into heaven the night of the Passover meal.  Well, what do historical records and the evidence indicate?  Was Jesus crucified or not? 

The truth is, the most reliable historical evidence indicates that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was indeed crucified by the Romans outside Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago, and this was documented by Roman, Jewish and Christian sources.  In fact, the death of Jesus Christ was never disputed in early historical records. The Jews, both those who hated him and those who would become His future followers, witnessed His death. It was a public event that took place in front of the whole world. 

This movie, based on the Quran and the film maker's interpretation of events, contradicts recorded history.  Should we trust this later rendition of the events, or go with eyewitnesses and the earliest historical records?  What are the chances that someone else was crucified in the place of Jesus?  What does the available evidence indicate?

The Biblical Evidence Indicates Jesus Predicted His Death

The four gospels - Mathew, Mark, Luke and John - were written between 40 and 100 AD.  Most scholars agree on this point.  So these documents are the closest to the actual events that transpired, and thus more worthy of our trust than other records written centuries later.  The gospel writers were also actual figures in history that wrote, from various perspectives, about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Their writings depicted eyewitness accounts of documented happenings in history.

The gospels record that not only was Jesus unafraid of death - He predicted His death a number of times.  According to the gospel historical records:

In John 12:32-33 Jesus says, "'But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.' He said this to show the kind of death He was going to die."

Matthew 16:21 - "From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life."

Luke 18:31,32 - "Jesus took the twelve aside and told them, 'We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles, they will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him, and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.'

Gospel Records Attest to Christ's Death on the Cross

The gospels all attest to Christ's death on the cross, along with two criminals:

Matthew 27:32-50, (vs 35) records:  "When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots."  (vs 50) - "And when Jesus had cried again with a loud voice he gave up his spirit."

Luke 23:26-46, (vs 33):  "When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals - one on his right, the other on his left."  (vs 46) - "Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit". When he had said this, he breathed his last."

John 19:17-30 (vs 18) records: "Here they crucified him, and with him two others - one on each side, and Jesus in the middle."  (vs 30) - "When he had received the drink, Jesus said "It is finished.” With that he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

Witnesses at the cross were recorded:

Matthew 27:54-56:  "When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God." Many women were there watching from a distance... among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons."

John 19:26 - When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son", and to the disciple, "Here is your mother."

Luke records in the book of Acts 2:22-24 how that the apostle Peter referred to Christ's death and resurrection when he spoke to a crowd during the feat of Pentecost:

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know--

Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;

whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it."

Jewish Historical Records Also Attest to Christ's Death

Note that the writers of the Talmud took their job seriously. These men were Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.  They were not Christians, but they documented Christ's crucifixion nevertheless.

Jewish Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 43a: "

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged [or crucified]. ... Since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover. 

Amoa "Ulla" (Ulla was a disciple of Youchanan and lived in Palestine at the end of the third century) adds:

"And do you suppose that for (Yeshu of Nazareth - Jesus) there was any right of appeal? He was a beguiler, and the Merciful One hath said: "Thou shalt not spare neither shalt thou conceal him." It is otherwise with Yeshu, for He was near to the civil authority."

Roman Historical Records Attest to Christ's Death

Josephus ben Mattathias (c. 37/38 A.D.- sometime after 100 A.D.) was a Jewish historian in the pay of the Roman emperors.   He is famous for two great historical works:  The Jewish War (written in the early 70's), and Jewish Antiquities, finished about 93-94¹.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.  He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal menu among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.  And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities, XVIII, 3, 3).²

Tacitus, a Roman historian, documented the death of Jesus Christ by Pontius Pilate as follows (as also recorded in the Bible):

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the price could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome.  Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities.  Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.." (Annals XV, 44)¹.

Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian who lived and worked in Rome about 52 A.D., "wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan was to his own time." (Habernas, VECELJ, 93).  Although the original writings of Thallus are lost to us, Julius Africanus, a Christian historian of the late second century (2221 A,D.), was familiar with them and quotes from them.  One very interesting passage from Thallus relates to the darkness that enveloped the land at the time of Christ's crucifixion.  Julius Africanus writes as follows:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon), and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died." (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1)

In the British Museum we have the text of a letter written by a Mara Bar-Serapion to his son, encouraging him to pursue wisdom.  This letter, written by this Syrian and probably Stoic philosopher, is dated about 70 A.D.  He compares Socrates, Pythagoras and the King of the Jews (which by context points to Jesus):

"What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished."

Lucian of Samosata was an Assyrian rhetorician and satirist who wrote in the Greek language.about c. A.D. 125 – after A.D. 180). 

"(Christ was) the man who was crucified in Palestine."

Other Early Church Records Testifying to Christ's Crucifixion

The early Christian church fathers wrote about the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus.  They clearly believed in the crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, and held that this was absolutely central to the message of the gospel - the good news about Jesus Christ, that the promised Messiah had come as foretold by the prophets.

Ignatius (A.D. c. 50-115), one of the early church fathers, Bishop of Antioch and pupil of the Apostle John, wrote the following: 

"He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate.  He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth.  .. at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried."

Justin Martyr (born A.D. 100), was one of the greatest Christian apologists who ever lived.  He was a learned man, and became a professor of philosophical Christianity in his own private school in Rome.

"For when they crucified Him, driving the nails, they pierced His hands and feet; and those who crucified Him parted His garments among themselves, each casting lots for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the decision of the lot." (Dialogue with Typho, 97)

"Accordingly, after He was crucified, even all His acquaintances forsook Him, having denied Him; and afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things ere foretold as coming to pass..." ((First Apology, 50)

In summary, the evidence clearly shows that the earliest and most reliable historical documents - Biblical, Roman, Jewish and other - record that Jesus the Christ really was crucified, really died, and really was buried at the direction of Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea during the reign of Tiberius Caesar.  To insist otherwise simply goes against recorded history.

Claim #2:  Judas Iscariot was crucified in the place of Jesus.  Again, what does the evidence show?  Is this likely, or even possible?

There are a number of reasons why this substitutionary theory is not credible.

1)  It is contrary to the extant record of eyewitness testimony that it was indeed "Jesus of Nazareth" who was crucified (see Matt 27; Mark 14; Luke 23; John 19).

2)  It is also contrary to the earliest extra-biblical Jewish, Roman, and Samaritan testimony about the death of Christ (see list of above citations).

3)  There is no first century testimony to the contrary by friend or foe of Christianity.  The earliest substitutionary legends are not from the first century, but later, and heavily influenced by Gnosticism (from A.D. 150 on).

4)  These legends are implausible, since they demand total ignorance on the part of those closest to Jesus, his disciples, his own mother who was present at the cross, and on the part of the Romans who crucified him.⁸   

5)  Finally, as Geisler and Saleeb so clearly state⁸, the Muslim denial of Christ's death by crucifixion is based on a theological misunderstanding.  For example, Abdalati lists the following among his reasons for rejecting the crucifixion of Christ: "Is it just on God's part, or anybody's part for that matter, to make someone repent for the sins or wrongs of others, the sins to which the repenter is no party?".

This is a complete misunderstanding of what Christians believe about the atonement of Christ.  No where in the Bible does it say that Christ "repented" for our sins.  It says, rather, that he "died for our sins" (1 Cor 15:3).  As Paul's writes in 2 Cor. 5:21, "He was made to be sin for us".  But at no time did He confess anyone's sins.  He taught hisi disciples to pray for forgiveness, however He never confessed any sin for himself or anyone else.  Instead, He paid the penalty for sin, and the death that follows, for us.  What the Bible teaches is that He took our place.  He paid the penalty that we should have paid.  He took our sentence so that we might be free.  (see Mark 10:45; Rom 4:25; 1 Pet 2:22; 3:18).

Another misconception that some Muslims have is that Christians believe that what Jesus did was not voluntary but inflicted by God.  In fact, the gospels declare that Jesus gave His life freely and voluntarily to pay the price for mankind's sin, and to free us from God's wrath.  Jesus said, "I lay down my life that I may take it again.  No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down Myself.  I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again". (John 10: 17-18).  Indeed, Christians believe - as John the Baptist was recorded as saying - that Jesus is "the Lamb of God that is come to take away the sins of the world."

Claim #3:  Jesus was only a prophet as this film and the Quran claims.  Well, did Jesus claim to be only a prophet, or something more?  What did His followers think?

Did Jesus Claim to be More than a Prophet?

Jesus of Nazareth made claims unlike any other holy person in history, including Buddha, Muhammad, and many others.  While it is true that many called Him a Prophet (and indeed He was); His words and actions testified He was much more than merely a Prophet.  For example:

1) Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh.  He said:

"I and the Father are one".  In another place "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father".

He was claiming to be of the same substance as God the Father - any the Jewish leaders at the time knew exactly what He was saying.  Most of all, in Mark 14, 61-64 He responded to the interrogation of the High Priest directly:

"Again, the high priest asked Him: 'Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"  And Jesus said, "I am".  And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

Jesus claimed indirectly and directly on many occasions to be God in human form.  That is why they took up stones to stone Him - they knew exactly what He was saying.

2) He claimed that He was the only way to God.  He said:

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  No man comes to the Father but by me." 

3) Jesus claimed that he was without sin: 

"Which of you convicts me of sin".  His apostles and followers also testified to His sinless life.

4) He said that He was "the good shepherd" - a description that Yahweh had claimed for Himself in the Old Testament

"the good shepherd that lays down His life for his sheep", and then He did just that - laid down His sinless, perfect life so that mankind could have a way back into a relationship with his creator. 

5) He claimed that faith in Him was the way to eternal life: 

"I and the Resurrection and the Life.  He that lives and believes in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.  And he that lives and believes in Me shall never die."

His Followers Believed He Was God Manifested in the Flesh

John's gospel proclaims in Chapter 1 that Jesus was "the Word", eternally existent with the Father:  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...  and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.  And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

The apostle Peter proclaimed in his 2nd letter "..our God and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:1)

The apostle Thomas proclaimed Jesus as God in human form. When Jesus appeared to Thomas and the other disciples after His resurrection, Thomas placed his hands into the side of Jesus, and into His scarred hands.  He then said to Jesus: "My Lord and my God."  Thomas was not "swearing" as some maintain -- such a practice was simply not allowed.  He was in fact acknowledging that Jesus was God in the form of a fleshly man.

Paul, the great apostle of the early church, also asserted Jesus was  God come in the flesh:  "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:  "God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory." (I Timothy 3:16).

Early church leaders in the 1st and 2nd centuries also declared their belief that Jesus was God come in the form of a man:

"You have been granted light both by the will of Him who willed all that is, and by virtue of your believing in Jesus Christ, our God, and of loving Him." ("Letters of Ignatius: Romans"³)

The Greatest Evidence to Christ's Claim to be God Incarnate:  His Resurrection

Christ's resurrection from the dead was the single most important event which turned a group of terrified followers into bold, gospel proclaiming zealots.  Not only that, it was so significant that it literally split history in two - BC and AD.  The gospels record that Jesus appeared in flesh and bones to His followers soon after He was crucified and put to death, and that His appearance had a transforming effect upon His followers. 

This event, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, were the two events which literally "turned the world upside down".  The Christian Church was born as a result, and the rest is "His Story".

For more please visit our page Evidence for the Resurrection.

In Sum:  Jesus Claimed to be THE way, THE truth and THE life

Yes, Jesus was indeed a Prophet.  But Jesus claimed to be FAR MORE more than a prophet - He claimed nothing less than to be of the same divine substance as the Father - the Creator of Heaven and Earth.  There was no other "Way" to the Father, no other "Door", no other path to God.  That is why the Jewish leaders tried to stone Him on several occasions, and why the High Priest tore his clothes when confronted with Jesus' statements,  An this is precisely why the religious leaders  eventually convinced the Romans to crucify Him. 

Claim #4:  Jesus referred to Muhammad "many times" in the Bible.  Is this true?  Did Jesus refer to Muhammad, or is this an unwarranted interpretation of the text?  Were  references to Mohammad and his miracles deleted from the Bible?

This film, and some Muslim scholars, have argued that the Bible predicted the coming of Muhammad. 

These are cases of misuse of Scripture.  There are many passages we could look at, but let's focus on one of the New Testament passages that are claimed to be about Muhammad:

John 14:16 - Here Muslim scholars see Jesus' reference to a coming "Helper" to be a prophecy about Muhammad.  The problem is that in this same passage Jesus identified the Helper as the Holy Spirit, not Muhammad: "But the Helper [paraclete], the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send, will teach you" (John 14:26).

Jesus also told his apostles that the Helper will be with them "forever" (John 16), and that the Helper will be "in you" (v 17).  Muhammad has been departed for over 13 centuries, and certainly could not have been "in" the apostles since they lived six centuries before Muhammad.  Clearly the "Helper" can in no way be construed as a prophecy about Muhammad.

As Geilser and Saleeb point out, "a careful observer, looking at the [cited] texts in their literary setting, will readily ascertain how they are wrenched out of their context by Muslim apologists, eager to find in Judeo-Christian Scripture something that will show the superiority of Islam over Judaism and Christianity".⁸

Claim #5:  The producer refers to the "Gospel of Barnabas" to support of his film's contention that Jesus was not crucified, but Judas instead.  Is "The Gospel of Barnabas" really another genuine gospel, or a fake?

The producer of the film refers to 'Gospel of Barnabas' as an authoritative source for why he believes Jesus was not crucified, but taken directly to heaven. 

But why does the producer cite this work?  Why do so many other Muslims do the same?  It turns out that a central idea in this forgery is in accord with a basic Muslim claim:  namely, that Jesus did not die on the cross.  This so-called "gospel" contends - like the movie - that Judas Iscariot was substituted for Jesus.  So no wonder it is appealed to as an authority.

But is it authentic, or a forgery?    Let's look at the evidence.

Consider what the Muslim scholar Cyril Glassé states:

As regards the "Gospel of Barnabas" itself, there is no question that it is a medieval forgery. A complete Italian manuscript exists which appears to be a translation from a Spanish original (which exists in part), written to curry favor with Muslims of the time. It contains anachronisms which can date only from the Middle Ages and not before, and shows a garbled comprehension of Islamic doctrines, calling the Prophet "the Messiah", which Islam does not claim for him. Besides its farcical notion of sacred history, stylistically it is a mediocre parody of the Gospels, as the writings of Baha'Allah are of the Koran.

The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, 1989, p. 64 ⁵

This is just one example.  Many scholars have examined this document, and pronounced it a medieval fake.   Here are just a few examples from scholars who have examined this document:

In their introduction to the Oxford edition of The Gospel of Barnabas, Longsdale and Ragg conclude that "the true date lies...nearer to the sixteenth century than to the first."⁶

Likewise, "Jomier proved his point by showing beyond any doubt that the G.B.V [Gospel of Barnabas Vienna ms.] contains an islamicised late medieval gospel forgery."⁷

Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, in their work "Answering Islam", note that "their is no original language manuscript evidence for its existence!" (in contrast, the New Testament documents are verified by nearly 5,700 Greek manuscripts that begin in the second and 3rd centuries)."⁸

L. Bevan Jones notes that "the earliest form of it known to us is an Italian manuscript.  This has been closely analyzed by scholars and is judged to belong to the fifteenth or sixteenth century, i.e., 1400 years after the time of Barnabas."⁹

Other reasons to doubt the authenticity of this document:

Although widely used today, there is no reference to this document before the fifteenth or sixteenth century.  Surely if it was in existence, Muslim scholars would have referred to is - but we find no such references. ⁸

In addition, no early church father ever quoted from it or referred to it - from the time of Jesus to the sixteenth century!  If it had been in existence, surely one of the early church leaders would have quoted from it or referred to it - but none did ⁸ (although they quoted profusely from the New Testament writings!).  Why?  Didn't exist.

Sometimes Muslims may confuse this document with another early 1st century book entitled "The Epistle of Barnabas" (C 70-90 A.D.), which is an entirely different document.  In this way many Muslim scholars falsely claim an early date for the later medieval forgery.  

The message of the apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas is completely refuted by eyewitness first century documents that possess over five thousand manuscripts to support their authenticity, namely, the New Testament.

The book contradicts the Quran claim that Jesus was the Messiah.  It claims "Jesus confessed, and said the truth: 'I am not the Messiah... I am indeed sent to the house of Israel as a prophet of salvation; but after me shall come the Messiah" (sects. 42, 48).  This is flatly contradictory to the Quran, which repeatedly calls Jesus the "Messiah" (cf. 5:19, 75] ⁸

The book contains anachronisms and descriptions of medieval life in western Europe that reveal it could not have been written before the fourteenth century.  For example:

1.  It refers to the year of the Jubilee coming every 100 years, instead of every 50 as was practiced at the time of Christ (Gospel of Barnabas, p 82).  It was in 1343 that the pope decreed that the Jubilee should take place every 100 years.

2. It uses text from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible (fourth century A.D.), even though Barnabas was supposedly written in the first century.

3.  Other examples include a) a vassal who owes a share of his crop to his lord, which is an illustration of medieval feudalism (Gospel of Barnabas, p 122); b) a reference to wooden wine casks, rather than wine skins as used in the first century (p 152); a medieval court procedure (see p. 121).

There are also a number of geographical and other mistakes.  One example:  the document states that "Jesus sailed to Nazareth" (Chap 20), even though Nazareth is no where near the sea!

In summary, their is no evidence to support the idea that this is a first century "gospel".  Hence, it lacks any authority to make claims about Jesus.  t is most likely a sixteenth century forgery.  One can hardly claim - as this film producer does - that it was "destroyed" by the Christian church leaders at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.  It wasn't even around at the  time!
 

What can we say About the Film "Jesus, the Spirit of God" and its Claims?  Not Factual.

The claims made by the movie just don't stand up to the evidence.  The facts clearly show that:

1.  Jesus was indeed crucified, on a cross outside the walls of Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago.  He did that voluntarily, and freely - as predicted in Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and in numerous other Old Testament passages.  Then early on a Sunday morning He arose walked out of that tomb to live forever more - also fulfillment of Scripture.  In fact, He informed His disciples about His coming death and resurrection on numerous occasions! For more please see the Resurrection of Jesus.

2.  Another - Judas Iscariot, one of the 12 apostles - was not crucified in His place.  Theories about substitutes did not surface until heresies began to abound in the second century and later.  There is no credible evidence to support this contention, and certainly the medieval and bogus "Gospel of Barnabas" cannot be used to support this claim.

3.  Not only did Jesus claim to be more than a prophet of God - He claimed to be the eternal Word of God made flesh (John 1). His followers and the early Church also proclaimed this.  He claimed to be Son of God and Son of Man, the great "I am", "one with the Father", and "the Way, the Truth, and the Life".

4.  Jesus did not talk "about Mohammad many, many times."  This is a misuse of Scripture  There is no supporting evidence for this assertion.  In the cases where it is asserted, it is a misuse of the Scripture.  A clear reading in context does not support these claims.

5.  The so-called "Gospel of Barnabas" is just that - a 16th century fake gospel.  It provides no basis for the claims made in the movie.  It did not exist at the time of the New Testament gospels, and cannot be trusted as an authoritative document to support claims made in the movie.

Would You Like to Receive the Lord?

Jesus said "I am come that you might have life [zoe, the life of God], and that more abundantly."  But He won't force His way into your life, or anyone else's.  He also said "Behold, I stand at the door and knock..."  You have to open the door.  The handle is on the inside.

Why not give Him a chance and let Him prove Himself to you!  Say a simple prayer and mean it - ask Him, if He is who He claims to be, to come into your life and make you the person you were meant to be.  He created you, after all, so why not give Him a chance to give you the best He has to offer? 

Here is a link to Billy Graham's web site that can show you how you can pray this prayer and begin a personal relationship with the Lord who loves you so much...

Steps to Peace with God ==>  http://www.billygraham.org/SH_StepsToPeace.asp

Links to Source Material

ABC News article:  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/16/2139706.htm

ABC Entertainment:  http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4297085&page=1

All About Jesus Christ:  Historical Evidence for the Crucifixion:  http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/historical-evidence-of-the-crucifixion-faq.htm

Answering Islam - Christ's Crucifixion:  http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/crucified.htm

Blue Letter Bible - New King James Version:  http://www.blueletterbible.org/

5 Answering-Islam.org.  What Do We Know About The Gospel of Barnabas?  http://www.answering-islam.org/Barnabas/

6 Longsdale and Laura Ragg, The Gospel of Barnabas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907)

7 J. Jomier, Egypte: Reflexions sur la Recontre al-Azhar (Vatican au Caire, avil 1978)

8 Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, "Answering Islam", p 304-308.

9 L. Bevan Jones, "Christianity Explained to Muslims", rev. ed. (Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1964), p. 79.