Christian theologians do not have exclusive rights to Christian theology and scholarship, particularly if the work in question disagrees with established Christian Dogma. Is Asher Norman, a Jew, allowed to write Jewish theology concerning Jesus, Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don’t Believe in Jesus; can Reza Aslan, a Muslim, be permitted to write historical biography, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth; is Deepak Chopra, a Hindu, licenced to write a spiritual exploration called The Third Jesus: The Christ We Cannot Ignore; is Fridthjof Dyr Jorden authorized to write a study Bible from the Devil’s point-of-view?!? Our theologies are in keeping with our religious beliefs. The simple fact of a disagreement does not invalidate the more controversial work as biased or bigoted.
Again, Christianity does not have exclusive rights to Jesus. Jesus also belongs to Judasim, because He was a Jew, even thought they reject Him as a the Messiah. He is of scholarly and religious importance to Islam, because the Quran acknowledges Jesus was a great prophet. Even the Theitic-Satanist has every right to challenge the validity of Christian theology and its Dogma.
Are we attacking the Church, two thousand years of Christian theology, and Jesus Himself as the Christ? We will leave that answer up to you, the reader. The reader who is actually willing to read our work.
Scholarship has always been concerned with the meting out of truth, but how can there be truth in theological works that are written about supernatural occurrences: the casting out of demons, the healing the sick, the raising of the dead, being bodily Resurrected. Because of contemporary sources like Josephus and Tacitus, historical scholarship can determine Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, a preacher teaching throughout Judæa and the Galilee, and seditionist executed by Pontius Pilate. Theologians derive their scholarship from the Gospels and the Epistles of the New Testament, which simply are not historical documents. This is not an assertion that they contain falsities; they simply describe often supernatural events that do not hold up to 21st century academic scrutiny.
Modern academia dismisses Ancient Greek reports of centaurs and Gorgons, all despite the writings of Greek historian Diodorus Siculus in his Biliotheca historica, a book met with much modern criticism. How can we dismiss a fantastical and mythical history of the Mediterranean world written in the 1st century BC, all because of its mythological entanglements.
Suetonius’ much acclaimed history, The Twelve Caesars, has met its own criticism. Matthew Dennison, author of his own The Twelve Caesars, writes,
“Suetonius sought instances of both [exactitude and truth]. Exactitude is apparently one result of much of his careful fact-finding and evidence-sifting; many of his truths are verifiable by reference to other surviving primary sources. Equally obviously, there are omissions from the twelve Lives; there are also areas where the reader must exercise caution.”
If a 2nd century Roman historian’s history of Roman Emperors can be called into question, are we not justified in questioning the “exactitude and truth” of Christian theology?
Reza Aslan, the author of Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth and a Muslim, has been barraged with criticism that a Muslim cannot write an objective book on the “founder of Christianity.” John S. Dickerson of Fox News argues,
“His book is not a historian’s report on Jesus. It is an educated Muslim’s opinion about Jesus…. Zealot is a fast-paced demolition of the core beliefs that Christianity has taught about Jesus for 2,000 years. Its conclusions are long-held Islamic claims-namely, that Jesus was a zealous prophet type who didn’t claim to be God, that Christians have misunderstood him, and that the Christian Gospels are not the actual words or life of Jesus but ‘myth.’”
Do Christians not realize Jesus is a major prophet of Islam?
Jesus is not the exclusive property of Christianity.
Will the book you hold in your hands be met with similar vitriolic condemnation? Indubitably. But, the truth of the matter is, we recognize this book is completely full of shit. We have not attempted to be theologically or historically or even morally accurate; even though we often cite theological, historical, and moral sources. We are more than willing to misinterpret our sources; something no true academic would comprehend doing. Not only are we willing to misinterpret, we will mock, contradict, refute, demean, sabotage, and question the sexuality of the greatest Christian thinkers.
Whoever said the content written in a book absolutely has to be the truth? Cannot a book willfully publish lies? Certainly a Study Bible inspired by the Father of Lies (Jn. 8:44) should not be faulted for countless documented falsities. It is Satan’s height of arrogance to not attempt to deceive the world with his lies. He is forthright in his confession that this book is filled with nothing but steaming bullshit.
It is the majority of the literary community who are concerned with scholarship and authority. Satan has never burdened himself with such haughty titles. Remember, this is not a work of scholarship, nor does it need to be. We need not have been educated with the horseshit of established Christian theology to be capable of spewing our own bullshit. Shit is shit. This is not a work of Authority, nor does it need to be. The Disciples were illiterate and ignorant fishermen when Jesus chose them to found Christianity; they only needed to be filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 2). What are we filled with? You are bright enough to figure that out yourself.