Commentary on Anti-Jesus Article

Here is a commentary on an article written to "expose" the "darker nature" of Jesus:

This article has an irresistible "feel" of having been written by an extreme egotist. Criticisms, often barbed, pointed at Jesus, actually seem to be selfcriticisms about the author. They are hidden between the lines, but it is clear that some "shadow projection" is occurring. (This is when a person with certain weaknesses sees them in others, but, often due to pride, never in himself.)

It is obvious to any student of human psychology that the guy who wrote the article simply does not like himself. The greatness of Jesus makes him feel small and insignificant, and increases his vitriole and vituperative bitterness. He calls Jesus names, ranging from "topnotch bullshitter" to "psychotic." He sees Jesus, and all of us, as hopeless egomaniacs because he is one. (This dangerous generalization/projection was the very same error that Freud made in psychology; obsessed pathologically with sex, he originated the view that all people suffered from this same pathology. In the end, he made a fool of himself.

This author, by focusing on the "dark side" of Jesus, and accusing the great mystic teacher of hopeless egocentricity, has also shown himself to be a fool blinded by the bigotry of his own perspective. He flies straight in the face of the Gospels and true history of Jesus by trying to present him as a nut-case with an unhealthy God-syndrome, instead of the real "Incarnation of Love," as the mystic usually sees Jesus.

It is clearly this guy's motive to stir up controversy rather than to present an unbiased, balanced historical perspective. Every accusation made by this man has his own "fingerprints" all over it. He is trying tojustify himself, or even to make himself look better, by degrading one of the highest and most noble souls in human history. Immature and cynical people are often deluded that they can make themselves look better by criticizing others who might truly be better people. (This is an elementary-school attitude.)

The author, puffed up with huge ego-pride, probably sees that pathology everywhere.

Did Jesus have a "dark" side? Yes, for he was part human. He was, as the old creed said, "true God and true man." His human part had physical, mental, and spiritual weaknesses. But, although this author's pride prevents this recognition, the great mystic became the "Christ" only when he overcame and neutralized the full dominance of his "flesh" (human nature) over his "Spirit" (divinity). He then became God, not in totality, but in nature, the incarnation of purest Love, and fear-free.

This author probably has a deepseated, perhaps unconscious, hatred or fear of women. For he celebrated the presentation of "satan" as a woman with maggots climbing in and out of her nose. The movie-maker who presented this, in "The Passion of the Christ," was also a misogynist.

And, in a couple of places, this guy was downright wrong. For example, nowhere did satan ask Jesus to accept him as "brother." Instead, the fearnature (devil) demanded his worship-- a very different situation!

This could be enjoyable, and entertaining, reading, if it were not so clouded with anger, bitterness, and sourness. But it could never be taken for a guide in life. It is too jam-packed with errors and prejudices. This guy gets much of his life-philosophy, apparently, from movies, such as "The Passion of the Christ" and "Pretty Woman," to which he also refers when presenting a life-pattern. Like all egocentrists, he takes himself far too seriously, and regards his own opinions as the last and best words on the subject. With all his bitterness and cynicism, perhaps he needs to see "Mary Poppins"!