Born a Jew into a Jewish family, did she ever herself deny Christ? How would we know?

In the end, it matters not, since Yeshua was not a Savior-God man, but an ordinary man. Check out any of the Jesus Seminar's conclusions, or obtain John Domininc Crossan's excellent monograph 'Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography' (a more readable text than his more compendious 'The Historical Jesus: The Life of A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant')

As Oxford Hebrew scholar Geza Vermes notes ('The Authentic Gospel of Jesus', p. 402, Epilog) Jesus “never chose to call himself ‘Messiah’ or ‘son of God’ and “even when others questioned him about his alleged Messiahship he usually declined to give a straight answer”.

Vermes adds that as for the epithet ‘Son of God’- disallowing the combined expression “Messiah, the Son of God” in Matt. 26:63 (where the two are obviously used as synonymns) it is NEVER spoken by Jesus himself. Vermes adds: “One has to be foolish to believe the mockery of the chief priests and scribes, taunting Jesus to get down from the cross because he claimed to be the ‘Son of God’ (Matt.27:43) . Indeed, “only demons or people possessed by demons addressed Jesus with this title” (Matt. 4:3, Luke 4:3, Matt. 3:11, Luke 4:41 etc) The “only example in which the disciples call Jesus the ‘Son of God’ and ‘worship him’ comes from a LATE LEGENDARY ADDITION by Matthew to the story of Jesus walking on the water “(Matt: 14:33). Meanwhile, in the parallel passage in Mark (6:51-52) the astonishment of Jesus’ companions is caused not by walking on water but the earlier feeding of the five thousand.

Vermes shows from his textual analysis, that the syncretic later additions and embellishments to the basic initial writings were probably a result of increasing skepticism and boredom among disillusions Christians (Vermes, p. 384’) After all, over a century had passed since the days of Jesus and the church- which had NO role to play during his life- had by then become institutionalized. It thus had become an entity to serve no other purpose than to perpetuate the teaching of Jesus in an indefinitely postponed “Parousia”. This in turn, led to the impetus to add to, further embellish and reinforce the Savior –Redeemer myth.

In the end, the determination of an afterlife fate predicated on whether one "denies Christ" as about the same gravitas as whether one denies "Popeye". Christians need to get over their Savior-salvation complex and realize it is a fantasy, most likely created by Paul to forge a hegemonic institutional entity - which we still see today.

As for "Hell", that has about the same gravitas and credence as the "Boogeyman" - no matter how many cites one digs up from a primitive text, scribbled by primitive tribal mentalities ca. 1- 100 AD.

if Michael Moore could get past the blinkered eyes of middle America and smug critics like Zacharek, would expose exactly how pathetically this nation values the well-being of its citizens

I agree. But we must bear in mind that the menial minions and nattering nabobs of the media (including so-called progressives) all suffer from deficient, childish personalities and personal envy. Only that could explain the pathetic review of this fil, from Zacharek.

The fact is Zacharek isn't fit to lick the pond scum off Mike's soles, and she knows it. All she can do with herself is hurl opprobrium and criticism, but not put herself out there- like Mike is. This, of course, is fairly easy and requires no motzy - none at all.

In today's co-opted media environment there are only a few voices with the courage to speak truth to power and you can count them basically on one hand: Keith Olbermann, Mike Moore, Bill Maher, and in a smaller purview, Amy Goodman.

All these people should have their work supported -at least by the progressives - rather than have rotten apples hurled at them by envious munchkins like Zacharek.

Stephanie needs to find herself another gig, and get off Micharl Moore's case. Or, maybe see if she can line up a position with FAUX News.

Very sorry, but if Bush displays no curiosity than he has no significant intellect. One of the hallmarks of a genuine intellect is curiosity about the external world. A recurring problem for many highly intelligent people (such as belong to Intertel or Mensa) is that their insatiable curiosity is such that they delve into numerous areas of interest - from psychology, to cosmology to archaeology and must incessantly prioritize their competing time allocations. They are also voracious readers.

To be devoid of curiosity is to be without a primary attribute of active, dynamic intellect. Hence to say Bush is "incapable of curiosity" is to also say his intellect is very pedestrian, ordinary - or "mediocre".

The mean IQ for such a person is generally "100".

If Bush REALLY possesses a "surprising intellect" I would like to see him at least take the Mensa test and show us he qualifies to be regarded in the top 2%. We won't demand the Intertel test (for the top 1%) until he first gets Mensa qualifications.

I am betting he won't make it. But hey, it's nice for the unwashed, and unread masses to believe a privileged goober in one of the most anti-intellectual nations on the planet can be regarded as having "intellect".

northsea wrote:

The irony is that Captain Mike will do more damage to his career than anything else.

Only in the minds of insipid pro-corporatists, right wing fellow travelers, faux progressives and assorted other neocon apologists and stooges.

Errr.....like you.