Jesus reveals the heart of the media

Certainly the media, like any group is a mixed population filled with a diversity of opinions. But a recent MSNBC article on Jesus very subtly suggests that we distrust the Christianity. The irony is that even accepting all the evidence presented in the article, there is no need to question Christianity at all. The lead in and title of the story give the impression that common beliefs about Jesus (or at least one belief) are over turned by science. The lead in goes as follows: “Jesus died of blood clot, Israeli researcher says…Expert: Crucifixion caused pulmonary embolism, not fatal blood loss.” The article begins with

“An Israeli researcher has challenged the popular belief that Jesus died of blood loss on the cross, saying he probably succumbed to a sometimes fatal disorder now associated with long-haul air travel.”

Who really thinks Jesus died of blood loss? There are two difficulties about the accusation that it is a “common” belief that Jesus died of blood loss. First, although the MSNBC article sites a Journal of American Medical Association’s 1986 article, there are too few households with JAMA under the coffee tables to consider what they say to be the “common” view. The common view on the cause of death by crucifixion in general seems to be suffocation, at least among Christians. The evidence of this is the practice of breaking the legs of the person so he (or she?) could not push up on his legs to breath. Jesus being dead on examination was pierced by a spear to verify his passing. So, if anything, what we have here is a case of science overturning science (unless you consider medicine something else) not the "common" view.

Second, the death of Jesus in particular is frequently taught in Christian churches as the result of a heart attack or a similar condition. The evidence of this claim is often inferred from the flow of blood and “water” from the spear wound. In a church setting Pastors and Priest’s connect the parallels of purpose and the physical facts of Jesus’ death. Namely, Jesus lovingly died to reconcile all the alienated people of the world to God and His great love; thus, Jesus dies of a broken heart in more than one way. This seems to be reasonably closer to “common” belief, whatever it might be.

Does this really matter? What if it turns out that the scourging gave Jesus some kind of bacterial infection that builds in his system and then caused sudden death? Whether Jesus died of a condition that is now associated with cramped seats on air planes, a heart attack that makes for nice illustrations in sermons, or some unknown condition, he still died on the cross. The biblical account is not threatened by these details.

It would seem that this article is motivated by one of the following reasons: 1) Jesus did not die from the cause that is commonly believed. To have a certified scientific fact disproving a common belief important to an event undermines the credibility of the event. Therefore, we should question the account of Jesus’ death (and the Resurrection even more). 2) Jesus did not die from the cause that is commonly believed, but died of the same condition that threatens the economy class passengers flying on the wickedly designed seats evil empire of aircraft industry. Such conditions are so bad that only the picture of the most holy man to walk the earth dies from this same horrible condition. 3) Although possibly wrong with respect to “common” beliefs, here is an insight into the actual death of Jesus. This is simply a fact, and this evidence is neutral toward all other claims about Jesus, Christianity and the aircraft industry. 4) Some combination of the above motivations.

Since, motives of any sort are rarely pure; some combination of motives is most likely. But the chief motivation would seem to be option 1. Option 2 is simply too weird of a connection, even if one tones down my exaggerated account. Option 3 seems to be not really newsworthy, unless one considers any news about Jesus newsworthy (if this is the case I would agree). So, my vote leans toward one, such that any news that is against Jesus is newsworthy. IF, I am right about this, we should all grieve the loss of reporting based on objectivity and the pursuit of the FACTS and TRUTH. Our cultural preference for entertainment over reality is revealed in our acceptance of this kind of reporting. IF I am wrong, how can we explain the general impression of selective intolerance against aspects of Christianity or at least Theism? Further, I regularly see news reports I know for a fact are wrong. Will America rise up and demand more from the media or will WE simply roll over and enjoy the siren song until it is too late?

The media is not the Devil. Everyone has a bias. I can accept this, but what I cannot accept is the media increasingly distant from the world they are reporting on. What was most striking about this article was not that it was totally slanted or wrong, but that it was simply so thin.

(How much are people talking about Religion?)