The Legacy of Jesus Christ

As many of you already know, Jesus Christ has permeated almost every part of the media. He appears in t.v. shows such as Family Guy, movies such as The Passion, Evangelical Radio shows, and has spawned thousands of Christ or Biblical related books and novels.









But, I'm not here to talk about the literal portrayals of Jesus in the media. I'm here to talk about the archetype that Jesus has left in our greatest movies and books. The archetype of the Christ, is a figure that shares many similarities with Jesus, such as redemption, being the "Chosen One", sacrificing himself in order to save others, leading a small band of rebels against the higher authority, and so on and so forth. I will explain these similarities and more later on.

The archetype of Jesus Christ has been used in our finest literary works. Such classics as The Red Badge of Courage, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Grapes of Wrath, and To Kill a Mockingbird all use the archetype of the Christ to add drama and a certain spiritual power that tugs at the heart-strings when we read. Instead of using direct references to Jesus Christ and his ministry, these novels use allegorical references to Jesus and his works. For example, in the novel "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest", McMurphy takes his friends out to sea and fish in order to test their bravery and trust in him, a clear allegory to Jesus bringing his disciples out to fish in order to test their faith.



But, the archetype of the Christ has not been restricted to great literary works, he has also appeared in many forms in film. Popular movies such as The Matrix, The Chronicles of Narnia, Armageddon, The Lion King, and even Superman all use this archetype for their main characters. Neo, the chose one, the one who sacrifices himself to save Zion. It isn't a coincidence when Neo stretches his arms out in the shape of a cross right before he dies, it is subtle imagery meant to invoke great emotion.

Aslan from The Chronicles of Narnia, the lion of royalty and power. He also sacrifices himself to save his people, going through the same tortures as Jesus did during his final hours. My personal favorite, The Lion King, where Mufasa appears in the clouds before Simba and tells his son to reclaim the throne and save the pride-lands.

The reason why I'm bringing this subject up, is to ask Atheists what they think about this. Now, I've heard many times that these literary works and films only use the archetype of the Christ in order to appeal to the large, Christian audience. But I disagree. These timeless classics use the archetype in order to affect our subconscious. They don't blatantly show any Christian elements in their works, and they certainly don't use any Christian themes when advertising their movies or books.

So, do the hard-atheists out there think I've ruined their favorite books and movies? Do you still appreciate the works for what they are? And what do you think about the archetype of the Christ and its role on our society?

I would like to chime in on this one.
Now before I get booed off of this forem, I would like to state that I am a regligous person but am not a Christian. Not sure what I am, except eccletic in my beliefs on alot of things. I do understand, however the nature of the question, and what the point of Jesus does for the culture is provide hope. Consider this, with alot of the titles of the movies you have mentioned, it was either a message of hope or to believe in yourself, as you have the strength within. Yes at one time I may have been an atheist, as I was searching. I also understand why atheist think they way they do. It is not enough just to point to the bible and state, well God stated that, and faith is something that you do not want to use as an end all be all excuse. Do not get me wrong, I am not against christianity or Jesus, but I do not believe that the ideas or the the interpertations of the bible applies to modern day. And when asked to prove or go beyond the bible, I just get either dirty looks, or am told to go elsewhere, or asked not to ask those kinds of questions. I am also under the believe that alot of the movies you mentioned is stating the same message, but not in a religous context.

So, do the hard-atheists out there think I've ruined their favorite books and movies? Do you still appreciate the works for what they are? And what do you think about the archetype of the Christ and its role on our society?

nope, because you're not tracing the archetype to its initial inception. the figure of "jesus christ" is something that was predated by other messianic cults. there was a cult of dionysus that had the idea of a chosen one that sacraficed himself to save us all. in terms of the jungian archetypes this would be a martyr figure. there are many examples of these figures that predate, the epic hero that makes the ultimate sacrafice in order to save the world, people, etc. another good one is horus (well, one of the many deities to share this name).

you haven't ruined any of my favorite stories because you fail to realize how much the original messianic figure that is lost to us because of horrible record keeping has influenced your own religion.

honestly, i think people give jesus far too much credit by calling him an archetype, he may be a figure that fits the archetype of an epic hero but he wasn't an original one.

I think the archetype in question would be better understood in even a more generic fashion...because after all, a rose is a rose is a rose, right?

How about:

'the noble sacrificial hero for the underdogs'



I've been thinking on this, myself, lately! I think that we could teach our children sound values, for a better future for all of us, by using the archetype without preference of source. That is true freedom and it would work, IMO.

Children need choices just like adults. But all the choices, not just two or three.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
nope, because you're not tracing the archetype to its initial inception. the figure of "jesus christ" is something that was predated by other messianic cults. there was a cult of dionysus that had the idea of a chosen one that sacraficed himself to save us all. in terms of the jungian archetypes this would be a martyr figure. there are many examples of these figures that predate, the epic hero that makes the ultimate sacrafice in order to save the world, people, etc. another good one is horus (well, one of the many deities to share this name).

I realize that you believe that Jesus was based on Dionysus, but I find it extremely hard to believe that the Wachowski brothers meant for Neo to be an allegory for Dionysus and not Jesus.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you haven't ruined any of my favorite stories because you fail to realize how much the original messianic figure that is lost to us because of horrible record keeping has influenced your own religion.

What do you mean by "horrible record keeping"?? If the record keeping was so "horrible", then how come the Gospels mirror each other so closely when they were written in separate places, at separate times, by separate people?


** Edit For quotation mistake

[edit on 3/25/2007 by TheB1ueSoldier]

Originally posted by queenannie38
I think the archetype in question would be better understood in even a more generic fashion...because after all, a rose is a rose is a rose, right?

How about:

'the noble sacrificial hero for the underdogs'

I understand, but C.S. Lewis, the Wachowski Brothers, and Ken Kesey meant for their characters to be based off not just any generic rose, but a very special rose. They meant for their characters to be direct allegories of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
I would like to chime in on this one....
... I do understand, however the nature of the question, and what the point of Jesus does for the culture is provide hope. Consider this, with alot of the titles of the movies you have mentioned, it was either a message of hope or to believe in yourself, as you have the strength within...

I agree, but as I said before, there are direct references to Jesus Christ and his ministry in these books and movies. Such as McMurphy taking his friends out to sea, or Neo stretching his arms out in the shape of a cross before he dies, or Aslan undergoing the same tortures as Jesus before he is pierced with a spear. And these were not just accidents. This is an excerpt from C.S. Lewis's official site:

In The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the fifth book of the series, Aslan tells the children that although they must return to their own world, they can find him there also (Hooper 123). Aslan says, "There I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there" (Hooper 123). Some of Lewis' readers wonder what the significance of this statement is and begin to search for Aslan here on earth. Hila, an eleven year old girl from the United States asked Lewis what Aslan's name is in this world (Dorsett 31-32). His response was this:

As to Aslan's other name, well I want you to guess. Has there never been anyone in this world who (1.) Arrived at the same time as Father Christmas. (2.) Said he was the son of the great Emperor. (3.) gave himself up for someone else's fault to be jeered at and killed by wicked people. (4.) Came to life again. (5.) Is sometimes spoken of as a Lamb.... Don't you really know His name in this world. Think it over and let me know your answer! (Dorsett 32)

When Lewis' readers find Aslan in the real world, they will find out that his true name is Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Do not get me wrong, I am not against christianity or Jesus, but I do not believe that the ideas or the the interpertations of the bible applies to modern day.

I'm just wondering, but how come the bible doesn't apply to modern day?

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
I realize that you believe that Jesus was based on Dionysus, but I find it extremely hard to believe that the Wachowski brothers meant for Neo to be an allegory for Dionysus and not Jesus.

no, i never said they meant to base him on dionysus, i actually implied he was based on the archetypal martyr figure.

What do you mean by "horrible record keeping"?? If the record keeping was so "horrible", then how come the Gospels mirror each other so closely when they were written in separate places, at separate times, by separate people?

first off, i was talking about pre-christian messianic figures

secondly, my answer is PLAGERISM
and it's not like they were all that accurate to historical events

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

no, i never said they meant to base him on dionysus, i actually implied he was based on the archetypal martyr figure.

I realize that there is something called the archetypal martyr figure, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the archetypal Christ figure. As I've already pointed out, these writers and directors meant for their characters specifically to be allegories for Jesus Christ, not just any martyr figure.

secondly, my answer is PLAGERISM

I highly doubt that.

and it's not like they were all that accurate to historical events

According to historical events, there was a Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, and all of the geographical locations mentioned in New Testament were correct.

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
I realize that there is something called the archetypal martyr figure, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the archetypal Christ figure.

they're the SAME THING

As I've already pointed out, these writers and directors meant for their characters specifically to be allegories for Jesus Christ, not just any martyr figure.

but jesus fits the archetype point for point, so transitive property
archetypal martyr = jesus
character based on jesus = character based on archetypal martyr

I highly doubt that.

it's incredibly unlikely that each of the authors didn't have a copy of the other gospels when they were writing their own (well, the ones that existed as none of them were written simulaneously). and you also implied that they were written by individuals when it seems more likely that they were written in a collaborative effort (changes in styles and dialects within individual copies of early texts point this out)

According to historical events, there was a Herod Antipas,

who died before the census
which took place in 6 CE by the way

Pontius Pilate,

flimsy evidence at best

and all of the geographical locations mentioned in New Testament were correct.

except for the swine that have to travel across half of judae to run into any body of water after having demons placed in them...
and all the other examples, but you stated that ALL of them were right, so refuting 1 ought to be enough to prove you wrong.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
but jesus fits the archetype point for point, so transitive property
archetypal martyr = jesus
character based on jesus = character based on archetypal martyr

Oh okay, that makes total sense. Let me use your theory on something else too:

Grapes = Fruit

Watermelon = Fruit

Therefore Grape = Watermelon!

Madness, Transitive properties ONLY work in empirical formulas, they don't work in real life situations.

it's incredibly unlikely that each of the authors didn't have a copy of the other gospels when they were writing their own (well, the ones that existed as none of them were written simulaneously). and you also implied that they were written by individuals when it seems more likely that they were written in a collaborative effort (changes in styles and dialects within individual copies of early texts point this out)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. From what I've learned, the four gospels were written by separate disciples in separate places at separate times. Remember, the disciples and other early Christians were fleeing in different locations because of Roman persecution at that time. I doubt that they would've been able to get together and write a bunch of books during their exiles. Its more plausible that they each wrote their own accounts of Jesus' missionary.

except for the swine that have to travel across half of judae to run into any body of water after having demons placed in them...
and all the other examples, but you stated that ALL of them were right, so refuting 1 ought to be enough to prove you wrong.

Matthew 8:28 "When Jesus arrived on the other side of the lake, in the region of the Gadarenes, two men who were possessed by demons met him... demons came out of the men and entered the pigs, and the whole herd plunged down the steep hillside into the lake and drowned"

Mark 5:1 "So they arrived at the other side of the lake, in the region of Gerasenes. When Jesus climbed out of the boat, a man possessed by an evil spirit came out from a cemetery and met him... the spirits came out of the man and entered the pigs, and the entire herd of 2000 pigs plunged down the steep hillside into the lake and drowned"

Luke 8:26 "So they arrived in the region of Gerasenes, across from the lake from Galilee. As Jesus was climbing out of the boat, a man who was possessed by demons came out to meet him... then the demons came out of the man and entered the pigs, and the entire herd plunged down the hillside into the lake"

Gerasenes or Gadarenes or Gergesa has many different translations, but they're the same location. Here's a map of the relative area.



So the most likely body of water that the gospels speak of is the Sea of Galilee. If the pigs did not drown in the Sea of Galilee, they could have drowned in any other river or stream or lake nearby. There are two large streams that run through my neighborhood, but they aren't on any local maps. Just because they aren't on the maps doesn't mean they aren't there.

the bible never mentions gergesa

by saying

Gerasenes or Gadarenes or Gergesa has many different translations, but they're the same location. Here's a map of the relative area.

you just say something

they AREN'T the same place

gergesa is a city

the other 2 are REGIONS

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you just say something

they AREN'T the same place

gergesa is a city

Actually, the name Gergesenes was introduced by the Christian scholar Origen, in place of the name Gergasa or Gergesa (there are many ways to spell these names further adding to the confusion). Scholars cannot tell whether or not the actual event took place at Gergasa or Gadara, because they were both very similar regions that could have fit the description given in the gospels. Either way, both regions were near large bodies of water, and as stated in the gospels, Jesus drowned the demons RIGHT AFTER he got out of a boat.

Study Light:

Some are of opinion that Gergasa was the country of the ancient Girga#es; but it is more probable the Gergesenes was introduced by Origen upon mere conjecture; as before him most copies seem to have read Gadarenes, agreeable to the Parallel Passages and the ancient Syriac version. Gadara, says Josephus, was the metropolis of Peraea, or the region beyond Jordan; and he also observes that it was sixty furlongs, or about eight miles from Tiberias. It is therefore rightly placed opposite Tiberias, at the southeast end of the lake. Pliny says it was called Hippodion, was one of the cities of Decapolis, and had the river Hieromax, or Jarmouk, flowing before it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
except for the swine that have to travel across half of judae to run into any body of water after having demons placed in them...

Well, I've already proven that there were plenty bodies of water around that region.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and all the other examples, but you stated that ALL of them were right, so refuting 1 ought to be enough to prove you wrong.

The one argument you brought up was flawed and easily refuted. I rest my case.


And WiseSheep was very correct when he said this about you:

Originally posted by WiseSheep
(To Madnessinmysoul) Why should I even waste my time with you? If it were just you, I wouldn't.
You left me hanging on the census argument off in another thread. So what's the point? When I prove you wrong here, you'll just shut up and wait for another chance to spout a well thought out lie somewhere else.

satan is created jesus was not godly

he was celebrated to take personal power away from humans and to misdirect people as well.

rome never completely fell, and catholism was reborn in the vatican

the black nobility worship lucifer with all there occult (stuff you wont' see on tv)

leaving things in the hands of a man jesus as your savior is not the best idea

black is white white is black

check out the HIGHEST levels of the jesuit order (not saying any more)

[edit on 3-4-2007 by cpdaman]

Jesus is godly. You can ask anyone in my church who has received the holy spirit and speaks in tongues.

Blessings,

The "Anointed One" is a very old concept, before that Freedom Fighter, Jesus/Yeshua appeared on the scene. Now, I don't want to start or continue the God/Science argument, but the thing is, Christianity has a big place in our culture, not just as Americans, but as Anglo-Saxon blood in power since our nation fought for freedom against King George. Because of the years of Whites holding power, it is deep within our psyche.

But, this religious figure which we now call The Christ, in my opinion, as being portrayed in many forms of Media, is not to push religion on people. That is the external factors that people think of. If you look deeper at this subject, I hold as truth, that each and every one of us can be a Savior, we are our own Saviors, our own leading principle. We make our own choices. If we look up to some Christ-like figure, some Messiah, there is two possble positions to take. Either you will pass the buck of your choices ONTO this figure, or you will realize that this figure is a Role Model, and thus strengthen your own place in life, and justify your actions by the regard you hold yourself in.

So, the figures of The One in the Matrix, Aslan in Narnia, Jesus in the Gospels, the Meschiah of the Jews, the Madhi of the Muslims, and other forms of Media, is really to show possibilities in your own nature.

Whether Christ existed, or whether it is the Greatest Story Ever Lied about, means nothing in the end. It is our own choices. That is what I think these movies and books are all about.

Then again, I could be wrong. Oh well, always learning.

Originally posted by queenannie38
How about:
'the noble sacrificial hero for the underdogs'

Believe it or not I had the same though after reading the thread, I agree with Queenannie38, is nothing more than looking for a hero.

Biblical Jesus was actually the hero of the new testament, heroes are good the no always survived and the more they sacrifice for the good of others the more it sells.

Originally posted by marg6043
Biblical Jesus was actually the hero of the new testament, heroes are good the no always survived and the more they sacrifice for the good of others the more it sells.

There is so much more to the "Hero's Journey" than sacrificing oneself. In fact, most of the hero myths do not have the hero sacrificing his life in the end.

I suggest reading The Hero With a Thousand Faces for more info on the hero myth, which Jesus does not fit.

For example, there are many precedents and archetypes that a hero must fit in order to be considered a hero, such as:
- A call to arms.
- Reluctance or unwillingness to go on the journey.
- Entering the abyss.
- Overcoming the abyss and overcoming past weaknesses.

None of these descriptions of the "Hero's Journey" matches Jesus' Journey. Therefore, he does NOT fit the archetype of the hero. He started his own archetype, the Christ-Figure.

TheB1ueSoldier, jesus does follow A hero cycle, just not the campbellian cycle (the EPIC hero cycle). and most epic heroes do die, there are 3 possibilities:
1: hero succeeds and lives, happy ending
2: hero succeeds and dies, happy memories from his comrades
3: hero fails and dies, new hero has to rise up or story ends

there is no hero surviving a failure. it just never comes up, or the hero later succeeds after a first failing (such as luke skywalker's encounter with vader on cloud city)