HISTORICAL REVISIONISM
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
When the crowd disappeared, Jesus stoned the sinner to death saying, "I too am a sinner. But if the law could only be executed by men without blemish, the law would be dead."
That’s the gospel according to a Chinese textbook.
For today’s society that has become so used to historical revisionism from the attempts to remove Christian references in US history to the Marcosian lie, we might say that this is another one of those cases only this time, it carries eternal and blasphemous implications. But according to Philippine History High School Movement, it is wrong to label such things as revisionism.
Historical revisionism is “the reinterpretation of a historical account or narrative based on actual facts and authenticated evidence.” (Krasner, 2019) so to say this Chinese account is revising history is to capitulate that they have factual evidence. Instead this attempt must be called a historical distortion where “accounts or narratives are changed to suit a ‘personal agenda.’ It involves disinformation and lies to change history.” (Cristobal, 2019) In this case, the agenda is as old as the serpent in the Garden of Eden itself.
At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, I see this as another subliminal case of the wiles of the devil (Eph. 6:11) for us to slowly accept another gospel (Gal. 1:8). Much like that frog in the boiling pot, soon, we may find ourselves adding and deleting from Scriptures (Rev. 22:19) if we are not careful. We may reject the blatant distortion but allow its entertainment. It’s happened (think cults) and will continue to happen but let it go its course without us swimming in it.
Some may argue that labels are just labels which can easily be changed. It’s only the erudite that are into that. That may be true but for some who hold them dearly, we need to use the right term in order to send the right message across otherwise while we introduce the Truth to them, they might be hearing falsities from us.
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
When the crowd disappeared, Jesus stoned the sinner to death saying, "I too am a sinner. But if the law could only be executed by men without blemish, the law would be dead."
That’s the gospel according to a Chinese textbook.
For today’s society that has become so used to historical revisionism from the attempts to remove Christian references in US history to the Marcosian lie, we might say that this is another one of those cases only this time, it carries eternal and blasphemous implications. But according to Philippine History High School Movement, it is wrong to label such things as revisionism.
Historical revisionism is “the reinterpretation of a historical account or narrative based on actual facts and authenticated evidence.” (Krasner, 2019) so to say this Chinese account is revising history is to capitulate that they have factual evidence. Instead this attempt must be called a historical distortion where “accounts or narratives are changed to suit a ‘personal agenda.’ It involves disinformation and lies to change history.” (Cristobal, 2019) In this case, the agenda is as old as the serpent in the Garden of Eden itself.
At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, I see this as another subliminal case of the wiles of the devil (Eph. 6:11) for us to slowly accept another gospel (Gal. 1:8). Much like that frog in the boiling pot, soon, we may find ourselves adding and deleting from Scriptures (Rev. 22:19) if we are not careful. We may reject the blatant distortion but allow its entertainment. It’s happened (think cults) and will continue to happen but let it go its course without us swimming in it.
Some may argue that labels are just labels which can easily be changed. It’s only the erudite that are into that. That may be true but for some who hold them dearly, we need to use the right term in order to send the right message across otherwise while we introduce the Truth to them, they might be hearing falsities from us.