Mythicist Milwaukee & King’s Tower Productions are going to produce a well-researched film about the Jesus myth theory that deliberately eliminates the flaws of past films (like that awful Zeitgeist thing) and pays attention to the best scholarship on the issue, while also introducing a lot of entertaining features as well as educational ones.
They have a great plan. They have a great team. I and others will be vetting the end product. And now they have the funding! The working title is Batman & Jesus. Their theme is to compare the evolution of mythology for both characters and use that as a springboard to explain how demigods come to exist and what they represent.
They have a detailed four minute appeal video here. Well worth watching, to see what their plans are, what they need, and how well they have thought this out.
Update: A major donor has fully funded the film. They will not need further support at this time!
This sounds great. I’m in.
And here’s the Indiegogo page… https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/batman-jesus-a-documentary-on-jesus-as-a-myth#/
@Serf_
Just FYI I haven’t vetted that page yet. And it’s possible it may not be needed due to bulk financing. Stay tuned.
Okay, I have confirmation, the movie has been funded!
No IndieGogo campaign will be needed. At least for now.
I friggin’ love this idea. First of all, I’m a huge comics fan. Second, I remember reading Joseph Campbell’s “Myths to Live By” in high school, and there is a chapter in it that shows how the classic pattern for the “shaman’s journey” parallels point by point with the process a schizophrenic goes through in recovering and adjusting to their situation, advancing the idea that shamanism was a sort of primitive mental health program. What struck me was how the origin story of Batman paralleled both of them to degree that it would’ve amazed Carl Jung. Now I’m really looking forward to BatJesus.
Whatever happened to that “The Gospel According To Price” movie that was supposed to be getting made about Dr. Robert M. Price? Here is the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsv6OuzZ8hY
I don’t know. I’m not connected to anyone who was developing that.
Great idea, similar to your Roswell analogy. I’ve used Superman in the past to make the same comparison with the Gospels, in how the character gets an updated origin story every generation (Superman in many ways is a better parallel as the creators were Jewish and he was created during a period of anti-semitism, and the name Kal-EL is even derived from the Hebrew god).
I find this subject fascinating, but you guys really need to drop the Roswell analogy. The Batman one is far more appropriate. Once you research the UFO topic enough, you’ll learn there’s definitely some substance to it.
Only to the delusional who are easily conned by fake evidence and bad reasoning and don’t know how to build a chronology of the primary evidence and watch it change over time.
Well, it’s time for a new film such as this so, I hope it turns out great.
On a side note, the hotlink provided for Zeitgeist part 1 takes me to “The Lippard Blog,” but in the comments Lippard himself essentially concedes that his criticisms have been debunked:
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3381
I hope this film, “Jesus & Batman” becomes a success.
Your link takes me to a long tedious thread in which I can’t find anything posted by Lippard.
Was that the wrong link? Or did you mean to say something else?
I and others will be vetting the end product.
Wouldn’t it work better for the experts to vet the shooting script, the editing process, etc? Your “but what about …” comments would help much more when the filmmakers still have an opportunity to make changes.
That might happen. But I am not under contract and I have no control over the process.
I think there may be no reason to believe that the central events of the religion (1 The Crucifixion, 2 The Empty Tomb, 3 The Resurrection) have any historical memory attached to them. Paul says Jesus died, was buried, and was raised “according to scripture (1 Cor 15:3),” which could either mean that (i) Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection were fulfilling scripture, or (ii) that Paul discovered Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection through an allegorical reading of Hebrew scriptures (e.g., the implicit piercing of hands and feet, Psalm 22:16b). In either case, Jesus’ crucifixion in Paul serves a theological function, so it can be doubted as to whether it can be traced back to the historical Jesus (because it could have served a theological purpose for the first Christians to invent these events and attribute them to Jesus). Biblical scholars commonly use this hermeneutic process to exclude attributing miracle stories to the historical Jesus.
That should NOT have read: “In either case, Jesus’ crucifixion in Paul serves a theological function, so it can be doubted as to whether it can be traced back to the historical Jesus (because it could have served a theological purpose for the first Christians to invent these events and attribute them to Jesus).”
BUT RATHER:
“In either case, Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection in Paul serve a theological function, so it can be doubted as to whether they can be traced back to the historical Jesus (because it could have served a theological purpose for the first Christians to invent these events and attribute them to Jesus).
Sorry,
John
It always struck me as amusing that so many people would go “Well, it’s not like they’d just make up this Jesus character!” in an age where we have superheroes in the movies constantly and Mickey Mouse urging us to come visit his magical kingdom.
I’ve heard them say in another interview that they will seek to focus on the common ground between Richard Carrier, Robert Price, David Fitzgerald, Kenneth Humphreys and D. M. Murdock, as they feel too much focus is placed on the disagreements. Good luck with that; if they stick to it, there won’t be anything to talk about. Perhaps they could show all five saying Jesus probably didn’t exist, but that’s it. They’re gonna have to pick sides, if they want to actually say something, and it’s not gonna be pretty. Let’s see how they fare.
I’m more optimistic. All they have to do is leave out everything that isn’t well established in the evidence. Of course, that will end up being mostly my stuff, but there is some stuff that survives that test, which I think is methodologically ineffectual but is nevertheless true. For example, a lot true can be said in general about the role of astrotheology in antiquity, and about its role in later Christianity. It’s just when you try to link it to the origins of Christianity that the evidence dries up. Similarly, one can build a more robust presentation of dying-and-rising savior-god parallels, even beyond what I do in OHJ, which resembles in purpose what has been said by some of the less well-argued authors, but simply won’t match exactly in content (e.g. I doubt much will get said about Horus).