Christian comic imagines Jesus survived, founded army

http://www.western-star.com/hp/content/shared/news/stories/COVENANT_COMIC_0301_COX.html
What if instead of dying on the cross Jesus had lived to sire an army of holy warriors bent on forging a New Covenant? Preposterous, right? The random particles of this implausible premise collide in Covenant, a Christian action comic book reminiscent of another popular fiction on Christ.

"Some people have compared our project to Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code,'" said Bates, a comic-book insider who managed Bookery Fantasy in Fairborn, Ohio for 18 years. "While both pose concepts that start with the life of Jesus and a possible lineage of Christ's descendents, the comparisons end there. Ours is more of an alternate history, socio-political, science-fiction action story with only a hint of the conspiracy so integral to 'Da Vinci Code.' But if the comparison makes our comic book more visible, more power to it."

...

The dashing superheroine of Covenant is Adonna. She's the daughter of a fisherman but might be a descendant of Jesus. Arch-villain Canthus is leader of a terrorist cell plotting against the Pax Euorpa Empire. Further complicating matters is emperor Cyrus the Caspian, a pig-eyed despot obsessed with world domination.

"People always wonder what our lives would be like if Christ never died on the cross," Bean explained. "What we did is set up an extreme situation and created that 'what if.' We have created a world where 2,000 years later, everything is completely different. It's a place where you wouldn't want to live."
This comic is aimed at christians so it could be too message-heavy for those of us who are nonbelievers, but it could be interesting. Will there be any parallel between Jesus-as-military-leader and Mohammad, I wonder?
 
I think I actually posted this as a WI at one point- though it was generally agreed a military leader Jesus would have an uphill battle against Rome, I suppose since he is the Son of God that gives him a bit of an advantage.
 
if he does indeed propose rebellion against the Romans maybe the jews would join him en masse ( i was told in primary school that the idea of a messiah was based on that premise) maybe there wouldnt be 'Christians' at all if Christ was a miliary leader.

I think its generally known that Christ never intended for a new non Jewish religion to develop- he was a practising Jew with new ideas or revelations if youre a believer.
 
The Christ would never have taken arms against the legal authority. Remember- this was the man who clearly said Give unto Caesar what is Caesars and give unto God what is God's
 
^^^It's good to know He supported separation of church and state. Now if only more of His followers would do the same.

RealityBYTES

P.S. On-topic, the premise sounds interesting, though I'm not inclined to pick up a comic book-style novel.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Flocculencio said:
The Christ would never have taken arms against the legal authority. Remember- this was the man who clearly said Give unto Caesar what is Caesars and give unto God what is God's

But did he not come to bring a sword?
 
Faeelin said:
But did he not come to bring a sword?

Insofar as he was overturning established Jewish theology and extending the Covenant to all nations, yes. He had little interest in challenging the legal civil order though. His battles were theological not temporal.
 
Flocculencio said:
Insofar as he was overturning established Jewish theology and extending the Covenant to all nations, yes. He had little interest in challenging the legal civil order though. His battles were theological not temporal.
Well, it's been argued that the main reason he wasn't interested in challenging the civil order was because he was a jewish apocalypticist who believed God was about to put an end to the established order anyway (of course most christians wouldn't take this view because it would imply Jesus was wrong in his predictions, but it fits the historical evidence pretty well). If he had decided that he was supposed to play a crucial role in God's plan for the apocalypse, then he might very well have been willing to take up arms.
 
I always kind of wondered about those scenes in the Bible where the Devil tempts Jesus. I keep hoping that, if I read it one more time, Jesus will turn to the Devil and say, "you are so freaking annoying! Tell me again why my Dad didn't kill you?"
 
Somehow, I can't see an army imbued with the spirit of 'forgive thine enemies' and 'turn the other cheek' being all that effective...presumably they'd just love their opponents to death?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
 
Tony Williams said:
Somehow, I can't see an army imbued with the spirit of 'forgive thine enemies' and 'turn the other cheek' being all that effective...presumably they'd just love their opponents to death?
Well, historically this hasn't stopped christians from attacking their enemies...I suppose it's possible to kill enemies because you think it's a necessity rather than because you feel hatred towards them. Also, I've read in a few places that "turn the other cheek" means something a little different when you put it into its historical context...for example, this page says:
Jesus gives three examples of what He means by not returning evil for evil. The first of these is, "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." Imagine if I were your assailant and I were to strike a blow with my right fist at your face, which cheek would it land on? It would be the left. It is the wrong cheek in terms of the text we are looking at. Jesus says, "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek..." I could hit you on the right cheek if I used a left hook, but that would be impossible in Semitic society because the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. You couldn't even gesture with your left hand in public. The only way I could hit you on the right cheek would be with the back of the hand.

Now the back of the hand is not a blow intended to injure. It is a symbolic blow. It is intended to put you back where you belong. It is always from a position of power or superiority. The back of the hand was given by a master to a slave or by a husband to a wife or by a parent to a child or a Roman to a Jew in that period. What Jesus is saying is in effect, "When someone tries to humiliate you and put you down, back into your social location which is inferior to that person, and turn your other cheek."

Now in the process of turning in that direction, if you turned your head to the right, I could no longer backhand you. Your nose is now in the way. Furthermore, you can't backhand someone twice. It's like telling a joke a second time. If it doesn't work the first time, it has failed. By turning the other cheek, you are defiantly saying to the master, "I refuse to be humiliated by you any longer. I am a human being just like you. I am a child of God. You can't put me down even if you have me killed." This is clearly no way to avoid trouble. The master might have you flogged within an inch of your life, but he will never be able to assert that you have no dignity.
 
RealityBYTES said:
^^^It's good to know He supported separation of church and state. Now if only more of His followers would do the same.

RealityBYTES

P.S. On-topic, the premise sounds interesting, though I'm not inclined to pick up a comic book-style novel.

Consideirng how so many people who talk about "separation of church and state" seem to think it means believers can't express political opinions and vice versa...
 
^^^Ha, ha, ha! That's a good one! I'll keep it in mind the next time my Legislature decides it's the state's job to determine what a woman can and cannot do with her body.

Buddy, I don't have a problem with folks expressing their opinions, period. What I have a problem with are folks legislating their opinions, folks who profess to have "faith" that individuals will do the *right* thing, then turn around and write up a law that exposes the lie for what it is: their "faith" in others is only good so long as those others toe the line.

When all's said and done, it's all about control. And the control freaks aren't just the right-wingers, either. They're lefties, too. Thing is, the righties are running the show in the U.S. right now, so it's their actions that are in the spotlight. But, trust me, the desire to control others is most certainly not limited to a single, ideological-minded group.

RealityBYTES
 
Jesse said:
Well, historically this hasn't stopped christians from attacking their enemies...I suppose it's possible to kill enemies because you think it's a necessity rather than because you feel hatred towards them. Also, I've read in a few places that "turn the other cheek" means something a little different when you put it into its historical context...for example, this page says:
I love these convoluted explanations trying to prove that black is really white!

I'll apply Occam's razor and take the simplest explanation as being the most likely - that Jesus was a pacifist. I don't recall anything in the Gospels which would contradict that. That is, of course, a very inconvenient fact for those militant Christians who want to claim religious support for a war, which is why you get rationalisations like the one you quoted.
 
Tony Williams said:
I love these convoluted explanations trying to prove that black is really white!
Seems plausible enought to me--why do you think Jesus specifically said "if anyone strikes you on the right cheek"? If it's true that there was a specific tradition of backhanding "underlings" on the right cheek in Judean society of that time, then there's probably a connection there. Anyway, if this interpretation is correct the gesture is both defiant and pacifist, sort of like the nonviolent resistance of Ghandi or Martin Luther King (and I agree that the New Testament suggests Jesus was a pacifist, I was just saying that part of the reason for his pacifism may have been his expectation of an imminent apocalypse in which God would set right all social wrongs).
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Faeelin said:
But did he not come to bring a sword?

I thought that was Mohammed.

First Jehovah, with Justice, Second Jesus, with Love, Third Mohammed, with a Sword. (Seems the Lord will take just so much..)
 
NapoleonXIV said:
I thought that was Mohammed.

First Jehovah, with Justice, Second Jesus, with Love, Third Mohammed, with a Sword. (Seems the Lord will take just so much..)
Nope, it was Jesus who (reportedly) said "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword". See the wikipedia entry for a discussion of the context and different ways this has been interpreted. The wikipedia entry also has a link to this article by a Muslim which mentions a few other things said by Jesus in the New Testament that can be interpreted to be advocating violence, such as:
“For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and SLAY them before me. And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem” (Luke 19:26-28).
“But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment, and buy one” (Luke 22:36).
Jesus also advocates the killing of rebellious children (Mark 7:9-10) and supports the amputation of limbs that offend God (Matthew 5:29-30).
 
Last edited:
Top