Is Man of Steel all about Jesus? Warner Bros hopes Christians think so

I saw Man of Steel last Friday and all I can still say, even after several hours to process it, is: WOW!  The movie is at least the best live-action depiction of Superman ever released! It is one of the best movies based on a comic book that has ever been put to screen. Not trying to spoil any of it for those who have not seen it, but I saw an article about the connection to Christianity in the movie.

Warner Bros. paid a theologian, Pepperdine University's Craig Detwiler, to prepare a nine-page set of "sermon notes" for ministers who want to preach about Man of Steel, titeld "Jesus: The Original Superhero." The sermon notes ask, "How might the story of Superman awaken our passion for the greatest hero who ever lived and died and rose again?" And then the sermon includes stuff about the themes and ideas of Man of Steel, after which the pastor is encouraged to say, "Let’s take a look at the trailer for Man of Steel." 

The comments made on the article are also interesting. The issues here are very central. Is a movie like this just symbolizing Jesus, or are the artists that created this movie just using themes and concepts familiar to western civilization? Does art in this way bolster the message of Christianity or in some way cheapens it? To be clear, the makers of Man of Steel or Superman in general are not in anyway trying to inspire people to be come Christians like C.S. Lewis intended through his work in Chronicle of Narnia. Given the other films made by Zach Snyder it makes sense that Man of Steel would have some Christian iconography. Big surprise. Even the earlier Superman films included many allusion to "Savior" and "Messiah". It kind of goes with the character.

Let's not forget that Superman's first creators were young Jewish men who were inspired by Samson and Moses - which are according to Theology archetypes and predecessors who foreshadowed Jesus Christ. As the character grew through the years, Superman became more Christ centered.  I won't give examples from the movie to avoid spoilers but there were at least 4 that I thought that were very blatant examples of making Superman look like Jesus.

I would avoid reading the following article until after you see the movie, but it is good to bear in mind that using Christian iconography and concepts to point an audience to Jesus Christ is a good thing. There is a danger of actually trying to equate Jesus with Superman. That's a problem. I don't think the film-makers do that and as a rule the comics books and cartoons don't. Superman clearly does not consider himself above humanity or better than humanity and certainly not a god and not divine. He does not consider himself worthy to determine who lives and who dies so he tries to save and help everyone. This isn't bad but a good and moral ethic to live by. It is one of the tent poles for Christian ethics.

Is Man of Steel all about Jesus? Warner Bros hopes Christians think so

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out two of the darker sides of this. Some folks make a serious error (sometimes tongue-in-cheek) in trying to argue that Superman is better than Jesus Christ and that like Superman Jesus is fictional. Really dumb, but there you go. I wrote an article about this while ago. Read it here: 10 Reasons Why there is No Comparision Between Jesus and Superman. And my brother -in-Christ, whom I really respect and if you haven't read his work you should,  posted a video about the occult symbolism in Man of Steel.  If you look our culture is steeped in it and many of our movies have them in them. You should be aware. Check out his video.

This Is How A Gun Works

What if Superman Punched You? - YouTube

What if Superman Punched You? - YouTube

Could We Record Our Dreams? [Science Video] | Geeks are Sexy Technology News

Could We Record Our Dreams? [Science Video] | Geeks are Sexy Technology News

Answering Muslims: Allen West Responds to Bill Cosby's Praise of Muslims

Reportedly on June 10, Bill Cosby said the following:

I’m a Christian. But Muslims are misunderstood. Intentionally misunderstood. We should all be more like them. They make sense, especially with their children. There is no other group like the Black Muslims, who put so much effort into teaching children the right things, they don’t smoke, they don’t drink or overindulge in alcohol, they protect their women, they command respect. And what do these other people do?

They complain about them, they criticize them. We’d be a better world if we emulated them. We don’t have to become black Muslims, but we can embrace the things that work. (Source)

Since then, Bill Cosby has come under heavy criticism.  People have interpreted his words as an endorsement of Islam. I respect David Wood but I think what he said about this misses an important point.

If Bill Cosby had praised some specific Muslims for being good parents or being good people, I would have no objections. I've known many Muslims that I respect as parents and as people. But Cosby went much, much further, claiming that we should all strive to be more like Muslims. And here we must ask what he could possibly mean. Should we be more like Osama bin Laden, or the Muslims who blew up innocent people at the Boston Marathon, or the Muslims who butchered Lee Rigby? Of course not. Cosby means that we should be like Muslims who live better lives than their religion commands them to live. But if we're looking for people who live better lives than Islam commands, that's almost everyone in the world.

I think that what Allen West, Sean Hannity, and even David Wood are missing is that Cosby was not endorsing Sharia or the Quran. He basically just said that there was somethings about the Nation of Islam (Black Muslims) that are worthy of emulation. I don't know if Cosby understands the difference but I'd like to think that West, Hannity, and Wood do know the difference between Islam proper and the Nation of Islam. If you study the Nation of Islam you will find many differences between it and what Muslims throughout the world believe.  I wouldn't endorse the Nation of Islam but its definitely not the same as the Islam practiced by "Osama bin Laden, or the Muslims who blew up innocent people at the Boston Marathon, or the Muslims who butchered Lee Rigby".

</ br>
</ br>


Answering Muslims: Allen West Responds to Bill Cosby's Praise of Muslims

High Five of the Day - Calvinistic "Quotes": Man's idolatrous estimation of his self as

This is an awesome quote:

Nothing quite reveals man's idolatrous estimation of his self as being preeminent then his acceptance of Christ dying for sins of others while he refuses to accept that men should die for their own sins!

~ Julius Mickel

This point is what separates born-again Christians from all other people - it is the recognition that salvation is not because we deserve it - we deserve death (physical death and eternal separation from God) because of our sins. Jesus saved us from the consequences of what we did, do, and will do.

Calvinistic "Quotes": Man's idolatrous estimation of his self as

My Common Sense Is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: Can God Exist if Yahweh Doesn't?

Here is  a video that went up today on the Debunking Christianity blog. It pretends to get rid of the God of the Bible by assuming that the Ontological argument for the existence of God throws the Bible under the bus.


 The Christian understanding is clearly misunderstood here. William Lane Craig often uses the concept that the greatest being you can think of is God. The video's author claims that he can think of a being greater than the God revealed to us in the Bible. However no proof is offered of that. And neither does the author attempt to explain by what he measures greatness. On top of all of that I see no way any one of us could come up with a more powerful, more loving, more intelligent, or greater by any measure. At the very least creating and sustaining all of reality out of nothing - energy, matter, time, space, and all there is - cannot be topped.

Debunking Christianity: Can God Exist if Yahweh Doesn't?

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Cain and His Offering

Dr. Mariottini has posted a really interesting article weighing different interpretations of God rejecting Cain's sacrifice but accepting Able's and why God did what He did and say What He did to each man. Really great stuff!


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Cain and His Offering

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Clever satire exposing heresies of the Trinity

Here is a great video that in an extremely humorous way explains the various ways that people have tried to explain the Trinity. No metaphor or example is perfect because it is our finiteness trying to wrap human understanding around the infinite nature of God. Good tries though.




Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Clever satire exposing heresies of the Trinity

No Compromise Episode II

This particular discussion is really interesting.They discuss a lot of thing - important things. Things like whether or not God can talk to us outside of scripture. I used to wonder how do people who are reformed and/or believe that the spiritual gifts are not for today interact and see their relationship with God. Do they see themselves being lead by God? Turns out that they use different terminology thanmy tradition used. It was very useful.

No Compromise Episode II

Thoughts from the Boonies: Jerry Walls: What's Wrong With Calvinism

I've had the opportunity to listen to Jerry Walls on a couple of subjects and I find myself in agreement with much of his ideas. The one on this video I really think he got wrong.


 At the end, he says he covers the scriptural basis of his conclusions in a 6-part series on YouTube.  I wasn't really impressed with that either. Beside no real good scriptural basis for rejecting Calvinism, Dr Walls presentation is flawed because the philosophy underlying it is flawed. For example, he spends quite a bit of time on talking about Calvinists must accept the compatibilistic interpretation and definition of free will in order for Calvinism to be consistent. I disagree.  If without salvation, you are enslaved to sin and can't choose not to sin that would mean you have not the ability to do otherwise and Libertarian Free Will  falls with a thud. This does not mean that people don't have wills of their own. We do. They are just bent and broken. Jesus is the only way to be free.  I agree with James White, there is free will - only it's God that has it.

Thoughts from the Boonies: Jerry Walls: What's Wrong With Calvinism

On Guard Conference 2012: William Lane Craig - "The Problem of Evil and Suffering" - YouTube

I don't think that the Problems of evil and suffering can ever be satisfactorily reconciled with our understanding through philosophy. It's not big enough. It can only be done well Biblically. Still it is interesting to watch philosophers try. William Lane Craig has good intentions, I just don't think he goes far enough in standing where the Bible leaves us room to to stand. I think he is far too concerned with maintaining that people have libertarian free will than what the Bible really says. Even though I disagree with Dr Craig on free will and God's sovereignty, he  still offers a better understanding and presentation that the atheists I've heard who fail at this question all the time.


On Guard Conference 2012: William Lane Craig - "The Problem of Evil and Suffering" - YouTube

God's Outlaw - William Tyndale - YouTube

English: William Tyndale, Protestant reformer and Bible translator. Portrait from Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Česky: William Tyndale (portrét ve Foxeově Knize mučedníků) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here is a movie I found on YouTube covering the life of William Tyndale. It is dated, but well-done and really good. Tyndale lived an interesting life and should not be forgotten.


God's Outlaw - William Tyndale - YouTube

Answering Muslims: Jihad Returns to London: A Reply to Prime Minister David Cameron

Last Wednesday, a town in the UK experienced a real act of terrorism. Two men hit an off-duty soldier with a car, got out, and then hacked him to death with machetes. They stayed around and talked to witnesses and explained why they did it. One even recorded a message on one of the witnesses' smart phone! He said that they did this horrible murder because they are Muslims and are agents of Allah and followers of the Quran. Hearing the UK government come back and say that this had nothing to do with Islam seems like a slap in the face to the murdered soldier, Lee Rigby. Call this what it was.


Answering Muslims: Jihad Returns to London: A Reply to Prime Minister David Cameron

Star Wars Filibuster

Sometimes actors are allowed to be creative and ad-lib their lines. In an episode of the show "Parks and Recreation" recently, it called for a scene where one of the characters had to do filibuster in a fictional city council meeting. Actor Patton Oswalt was told to come up with whatever he wanted and chose to do a pitch for Star Wars Episode VII. This is what he came up with: pure gold.




Animated version


Star Wars Filibuster - Animation - YouTube

The Avengers...PBS-Style! - Topless Robot - Nerd news, humor and self-loathing.

This video is a joke but it makes some very astute observations about the media. Education indeed needs to be avenged.


The Avengers...PBS-Style! - Topless Robot - Nerd news, humor and self-loathing.

Calvinistic "Quotes": There are only two religions in the world:

There are only two religions in the world: divine accomplishment and human achievement.
~ John MacArthur


Calvinistic "Quotes": There are only two religions in the world:

MUSLIM PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS - YouTube

Some Atheists either try to devalue or outright deny the historical facts of Christians having been persecuted or killed since the beginning of it. One way we know that they are wrong is because there are Christians being persecuted and killed even today. Why would it be any different for Jesus' first followers? It wouldn't.


MUSLIM PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS - YouTube

Pacific Rim - Con Footage [HD] - YouTube

Pacific Rim - Con Footage [HD] - YouTube

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Sinner, Do You Know Jesus?

Harry McCall has posted another of his really ignorant arguments that he is deluded enough to really believe is a "death blow" for Christianity. In this case he correctly seems to understand the scripture:

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." - Acts 4:12

There is no one else through whom we must be saved other than Jesus of Nazareth - the Christ - son of the Living God.  This is definitely what Peter was saying.  However McCall attempts to make the following argument:

To keep our souls out of an eternal fiery Hell, we need to be “washed in the blood of the Lamb”, that is the blood of Jesus. But since the Gospels can’t agree (see below) on just who and what this Divine Man is, we are forced to look outside of the New Testament of a savior named Jesus.

McCall is wrong.The Gospels are not confused.  McCall is confused.  He offers the following "evidence" that the Gospel of Matthew is confused as to which Jesus we need to put our faith in.

A major problem in the Gospel of Matthew 27: 17 is that we have more than one Jesus crucified by Ponitus Pilate! As pointed out by Bruce Metzger in his A Textural Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., 1994 p. 56 states:

In a tenth century uncial manuscript (S) and in about twenty minuscule manuscripts a marginal comment states: “In many ancient copies which I have met with I found Barabbas himself likewise called ‘Jesus’; that is, the question of Pilate . . . “ συνηγμένων οὖν αὐτῶν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Πειλᾶτος• τίνα θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν, Βαραββᾶν ἢ Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν; (So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, "Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?")

Dr Bruce Metzger was only talking about one manuscript and it's not saying that Pilate did not know which man was the Messiah.

 In a closing statement on this verse Metzger notes that “A majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the original text of Matthew had the double name in both verses and that Ἰησοῦν was deliberately suppressed in most witnesses for reverential consideration” or we might more accurately note for apologetic / theological purposes! 

Metzger was not making an apologetic or a theological  point but McCall want to make a point but only manages to fail miserably. Before I explain the main thing he misses, I want to point out that he tries to give multiple examples of other men named "Jesus".

What is really sad is that McCall mistake is so obvious!  He is making the assumption that the name "Jesus" would have to been unique for scripture to be true.  "Jesus" wasn't even the name in the Aramaic. His name is "Yeshua". "Jesus" is the Greek transliteration of "Yeshua" and in English "Yeshua comes to us as "Joshua". It doesn't matter what language you use - Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, or English - the name was a common name in 1st century Palestine. There are more than 14 men referenced as Jesus from that time period. Extremely popular.  This is why they did a lot of disambiguation. And in each of McCall's examples there is disambiguation in the examples. Thanks, McCall, for making my point for me. In no way is anyone in the Bible confused as to which Jesus they were referring too - any more than I can confuse John Loftus with my grandfather just because they have the same first name.

To add insult to common sense and scholarship, John Loftus offered the following *ahem <cough> insight.

Harry, you're good at unearthing this interesting stuff. Keep it up. 

If Loftus is the learned scholar he pretends to be - the one whom Dr William Lane Craig - is too scared to debate, then why could he not identify such an obvious flaw in logic?

Perhaps Loftus and McCall should learn something from a real scholar.

   Lecture with Dr. Peter Williams from Lanier Theological Library on Vimeo.
Debunking Christianity: Sinner, Do You Know Jesus?