The Passion of the Christ - Page 6

You're right of course, errors have been made in translating and recording the text sometimes.

Everyone's favorite is The Adulterer's Bible, which got it's name from the English versions put out by the Queen's Printer and left out the "not" in the commandment about adultery. The Printer was jailed for that error.

But my point was more along the lines that the original manuscripts that are used as source documents for translation (textus receptus etc.) exhibit few changes over time and no discrepancies in theology.

As for the Gospel of Thomas and others, I haven't done a serious study on them, but I've heard there is some pretty wacky theology present in most of those writings, and the church is better off without them.

It's more than that. When I say tampered, I really mean tampered.


There's very little doubt the Jesus story has been tampered with to please those at the Council of Nicea, who then decided that Jesus should be God, Man and son of God, among other things. That is common knowledge.


Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls predate the Gospels. They only include Jewish scripture (i.e. Torah/Nevihim/Ktuvim - TANAH). That is also common knowledge.

Maybe among conspiracy buffs. Those of us who have studied legitimate Christian history don't see any evidence of this. The books of the NEw Testament that have come down to us do not differ in any noteworthy ways from any of the pieces of the documents we have found that date to the early Christian era, whether from Nag Hammadi or other sites. Please, if these works have been redacted, show us your proof.

Those who seek to build an evil conspiracy that "changed" the Christian religion around 300 have to rely on very unscrupulous tactics to "prove" their point, first by presuming that the documents of the Gnostic heretics should be viewed as of equal orthodoxy as those of the Christian church, and second by ignoring the great wells of writing from early Church leaders, Polycarp, Clement, etc, which universally support the orthodox, not the Gnostic, point of view. Primitive Trinitarian theology is present in Christian writing dating back to the early second century (and the nucleus of it can be found in the Scriptures themselves). The Trinity was not a doctrine that was invented to satisfy the Romans, it was one that was finally defined and set down after the Roman government lifted the veil of persecution.

But it wasn't set down at Nicea. The Nicean Creed was actually finalized at a second Ecumenical Council in Chaldecon, and it was here that the final status of the Paraclete was determined, and the creed we know today was finalized.

A Synod at Hippo, meeting between these two Councils, determined, upon approval by Rome, the formal canon of the Bible, which matched that used in Rome prior to the Synod. Several books not normally used in most of Christendom, including Revelation, 3 John and Hebrews, were canonized, while several books popularly used in services and treated with the reverence of scripture, including the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache and the Epistle of (Pope) Clement to the Ephesians were left out, not due to issues of Orthodoxy, but because they were not considered Apostolic in Source.

None of the Gnostic works (The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospels of Peter & Paul, The Acts of Mary) were in wide use at the time, as Gnosticism had been pushed aside by the mid-100s.

The Christianity that emerged from the Nicean-Chadleconian period was more defined and organized than that which entered it with the Edict of Milan in hand, but it was not fundamentally different. All of the noteworthy traits that were present in formalized Christianity were found widely in pre-Nicean Christianity, including primitive Trinitarianism and the common Biblical canon (give or take a few regional variances). In fact, the earliest Christian writings in the post-Apostolic period, the letters of the Fathers, provide ample evidence that speaks of linearality of belief from that point to modern Christianity (and also evidence of most of the uniquely Orthodox/Catholic practices, such as the sacraments of infant baptism and confession, prayers for the dead, veneration of the saints and Mary, the concept of apostolic succession, etc).

Only by ignoring the wealth of writings available to us from the earliest Church Fathers, the evidence of the near-extant fragments and passages of the New Testament texts and the fact that not all documents referring to Jesus should be held in equal orthodoxy can conspiracy theorists support the notion that Christianity was somehow perverted in the post-Milan period.

The post-Apostolic, pre-Milan era clearly speaks to a religion that was organizing into a nascent form of what we would today recognize as either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

Kirk

There is much truth in the tampering but I would question whether it was too point the finger at the Jews. Clearly it was to excise certain elements of Christ's teaching that the Church found inconvenient.

The idea that Christ = God would be a good example - something that was heresy until the Council of Nicea as you say. And remember that the early history of the church is a history of the violent eradication of 'heresy', it seems likely that the eradication of people was also extended to textual matters.

But your theory that Christ was speaking to the Jews alone and 'plotting' against Rome is clearly wrong.

For a start there is the fracas in the temple which surely wouldn't have endeared JC to the Jewish authorities and indeed there were many revolutionary 'terrorist' outfits around at the time. Jesus didn't join or support them.

Except that it wasn't heresy. It is a belief clearly present in the Gospels and writings of the New Testament, which we have no reason to consider redacted until proof of such is presented, and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.


Later history was, sadly, when the Church began to mix itself with the power of the state. But the early Gnostic heresy was generally combatted with preaching and writing, not swords and gallows.


Clearly Roman authorities feared him, because of the beliefs of the Jews of the day, particularly the Zealots, regarding the coming Messiah. Otherwise he would have been stoned, not crucified.

Kirk

So why was it invented?

He attacked the money changers, who in turn attacked the sovereignty of Judah through Roman currency. Any amateur "economist" would understand that. And the average guy on the street, having any nationalist feelings, would applaud Jesus for doing that.

So the earliest fragments date to early third-century. That still leaves 200 years after the death of Jesus to invent and reinvent, the Jesus story.

And so the we're slowly getting the picture of what you assert as "obvious truth".


The ONLY things you were clear on what that you felt the Jews who witnessed and/or who were involved with the crucixion were totally powerless and had to do whatever the Romans said. Which by implication means you don't think the Jews wanted Christ to be killed (at least that's how all your previous posts read). You never really told your version of the story. So "LOL" yourself. It should be obvious I'm not the only one questioning your assertions... have a look around.



You believe this because? Your evidence of "obvious falsehood" is in which texts / historical documents? While I agree not much attention was given (in the Bible passages I'm aware of, anyway) to what Jesus thought of the Romans, I would like to see the historical grounding for your bold statements.


Because? You see clear evidence of Jesus leading this specific rebellion where, exactly? This is something completely new to me, please give more details so I can understand.


Because? What readings are you privvy to that lead you to believe Jesus made no such claims and had no such powers? That he was just "an average Joe" basically?


He was a Rabbi... in the official sense? Or do you mean they just looked up to him as a teacher and in that sense he was a Rabbi?

"Thieving murderous Roman beasts"?

Wow. I know the Romans did many cruel things during the reign of their Empire, but your language screams "agenda". 2000 years later and you speak of them as if they killed someone you know. Your first "contributions" to this thread consisted of little more than bad-mouthing me and my postings... as if I was attempting some clever ploy to dupe people... and you give us all this? Ballsy. I'll leave it at that.

I will allow that a big part of why Jesus was crucified (most likely) had to do with his stance against Jewish authorities, but I have no reason to believe those authorities were also a "minority" among Jewish leaders of the time. Of course, I am willing to have light shed on this if there is proof to the contrary.


This is getting comical. Have you ever taken a formal logical class?

So, because Jesus himself was not in favor of Roman rule and abuse, and because the Jewish high priests did not favor Roman rule either, in your view, Jesus was therefore no threat (political or otherwise) to any Jewish religious or political leaders? He was living in a vacuum I guess? Nothing he said or did could have *possibly* thrown an ill light on the other Rabbis or Jewish leaders in his area? Just an utter impossibility in your mind? A direct, if-then, cause-effect type relationship... all because they had the common belief of not wanting Roman rule?

Your lack of critical thinking is pretty obvious at this point. I think now you're not so much trolling as you are misguided by your own convinctions.


Ah, interesting point. But I thought the Jewish community was completely "powerless" in this time according to your earlier posts. Wouldn't the ability to have Jesus tried for high religious crimes and then stoned, be a sign there was some autonomy in the Jewish community?? Could they have done such a thing without Roman permission? Just asking.

Again, I would love to see the evidence that makes such claims as these "common sense". I am confident though, that you will not show us any and will instead just keep telling us that it's "obvious".



My final take before I disengage from this thread (until I see the movie).

As Kirkland said, all you're doing is throwing out conspiracy theories. You're proposing very unusual interpretations of the situation and saying "well you'd have to be CRAZY not to believe my version..." Unfortunately for you, that doesn't qualify as proof in anyone else's mind. Such theories need to be grounded in some sort of respected, historical text (wouldn't matter to me if the author was Jewish or not... only that the work be regarded as a thorough and thoughtful one). It's pointless for you to claim such intricate theories as being "self evident".

What *is* self-evident are the kinds of things I was originally saying (i.e. the makeup of the local population during Jesus' time, the nature of crucifixion, the tendancy for people in modern society to not say what they mean when dealing with sensitive topics in the media... out of a desire for "political correctness" basically). And yet you refuted all those notions for some reason.

I'm not even saying the Bible hasn't been tampered with, because I believe it has been altered many times over the centuries... even changing a few words here or there can make a big difference when you look at a work over the course of centuries and not decades. Look how many changes have been made to a popular work like the Lord of the Rings in less than 100 years. We're talking about a span of time 20x that. So of course (all religious texts, not just Christian ones) are going to get their words massaged during that time. Due to social pressures, due to political greed, and for all sorts of other reasons based on "the human condition".

I doubt very much though, that one day, a bunch of people got together and said "let's retell this story and make it the "official version", so no one really knows what we did to all the Jews! Bwaahahahahaaaa!" Of course, that's just my way of thinking. I could be wrong.

As always, I remain ever-open to "the enlightenment" of your sources.

Cheers,
Moogs

It wasn't "invented." It naturally evolved out of the Christological theology that formed the early foundation of the religion and which continues to do so today.

Your conspiracy nonsense is childish and tiresome. Do you have any actual "evidence" to provide, or are you just going to continue to spout off, arguing from silence, which is no argument at all?

Kirk

I'd just like to point out that if Truth 'evolves', it is no longer Truth.

So either the original theology was not Truth, and it was found later by admittedly flawed humankind, or Jesus' original teaching *were* Truth, and flawed humankind lost their way.

Which makes more sense to you?

Frank777: So what, exactly, made one disciple's gospel (Mark) more appropriate for the church's needs than another (Thomas)? Smacks of political maneuvering to me on the part of the deciding bodies.

My belief is that all of Christianity can be boiled down to one creed: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love your neighbor as you do yourself.

That's it. That's the core. If you follow that, you adhere to Jesus' teachings. If you don't, no amount of going to church, wearing a cross, or thumping a Bible is going to change the state of your soul.

The rest is smoke and mirrors and unfortunate layers of extraneous gunk that provide people with justification for all sorts of atrocities 'in the name of God'. And much of that has been mistranslated, purposefully altered and/or forgotten, or outright ignored to prove one or another political point. Which is fine, as long as one doesn't think it has any truth to it... because in the end *it doesn't matter*. Only the core creed does.

Have fun guys. I'm outta this one.

Which is effectively the case. Palestine was an occupied province of the Roman Empire, and the facts surrounding Jesus' death cannot be attributed to any form of execution open to the Jewish authorities. Had Jesus been executed by Jews, he would have been stoned.

Jesus was executed for crimes against the Empire, not religious heresy.


Jesus probably did not lead any sort of rebellion, but at that time the Zealot movement was strong, and many Zealots supported Jesus at least, until it became clear that he was not seeking temporal enthronement. Judas Iscariot was a Zealot, and it was when he realized that Jesus' "Kingdom" was metaphorical/spiritual that he turned against his rabbi.

Since Jesus was a popular leader of a Messianic movement, and the Romans associated Messianic movements with rebellion, he would have been considered an enemy of the state. After his ruckus in Jerusalem, the Romans would have been eager to wash their hands of him.


Anyone who was a teacher and leader such as Jesus would have been considered a Rabbi. Particularly given the Pharisetical nature of Jesus' teachings.

Kirk

Nonsense. Truth evolves as we come to understand it better. The earliest Christians had in their theology everything they needed to ascertain the idea of the Trinity, except for hundreds of years of debating and considering the topic.

To demand that any Truth be passed down in complete and final form from the first generation of believers to the last and never grow or expand one iota (heh, ironic choice of words) would be asinine.


That's one of Jesus' teachings, but it is not the core of Jesus' teachings, which are about faith and salvation. The Golden Rule is not the core of Jesus' philosophy, instead it is the only way to effectively act upon Jesus' philosophy, which is to love God and love your fellow man.


Prove it.

Kirk

What a waste of intellectual talent

All of you would do better focusing on something pertinent

perhaps Buddha's sutras and their transformations over time . . . or your navel . . . .

You see in this excercise the same kind of devolution into useless minutea that mired Western thought for far too long . . . and kept us in a spiritual 'black iron prison' . . . .

Wake up!



Besides, the reviews are out: Gobson's movie sucks

Well thank God that pfflam is here to tell me in his infinite wisdom what I should and shouldn't consider important.

Bite me.

Kirk

It would appear that this thread has been handed over to those that would cause only argument, and reduce it to namecalling. If anyone wishes to discuss this topic in an intelligent and tasteful manner, I welcome your thoughts in my thread on MacNN of the same name.

Telling someone to "BITE YOU", does not go a long way to winning an argument. If you want to disagree with the movie, or what it is based on, then just go to the ADL page and find numerous hate-filled suggestions to promote the idea that this movie is Anti-Semitic. It is the whole reason this organization exists, and if Anti-Semitism disappeared tomorrow, then they would have no reasons for existing. They are Anti-Catholic I would submit, and further more would have the BIBLE tossed into everyone's fireplace and burned. Just my oppinion, but by looking at their website, it isn't a difficult thing to conclude.

And, yet the movie has yet to be seen by the general public.

I'd rather he say "bite me" to me than have to listen to you!

Go back to MacNN!

Ok, I'll go for that but it will possibly be quite involved. Some brief openers...

The Gospels claim to be written by specific authors - in many cases this cannot be true on a reading of the text (as with Moses describing his own death in the OT).

Therefore, we may assume one of two things:

1) they are not true (that is Mark was not written by Mark say and that claims to be eyewitness reports are therefore false)

2) they were written by the claimed authors but were later tampered with.

There are no other possibilities.

Here are some examples:

Timothy 2 is allegedly written by Paul in Rome at the end of his life. 'Paul' says he has left Trophimus 'sick at Miletus' but in Acts (an earlier work), 'Paul' claims Trophimus accompanied him from Miletus to Jerusalem. Clearly these cannot be both correct nor is it likely that the same person wrote both if they were describing personal experiences.

Some facts: there is no complete book of Christian scripture. There are only 88 fragments datable prior to c 300 - very few of these datable before c 180.

But the proof really is easier than on purely textual grounds. The Biblical scholar T C Skeat examined the Codex Sinaiticus in 1938. By UV light he found the opening verses of the famous 'consider the lillies' speech from Matthew
had been written over an earlier text that had been erased. The original text ran:

"Consider the lillies of the field: they neither card nor spin"

This had been replaced with:

"Consider the lillies of the field, how they grow, they toil not, neither do they spin and yet I say to you Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed as one of these"

That's the Sermon on the Mount and that's undeniable evidence of tampering with the words of Jesus and making him say something he never said. It may not be important textually but the point is that we have evidence it was done at least once.....

What does this matter? And it's probably a mixture of both. Moses didn't write the Pentatuech, everyone knows that. But Mark probably did write "Mark," though he wasn't writing his own theology, but transcribing that of Peter, as witnessed by the testimony of the Early Church Fathers.


Who ever said that books of the Bible don't contradict each other? Not I. In this case, as in all cases where Acts, which was a persuasive piece of narrative written by the author of Luke as apologetics to the Roman Empire, contradicts statements in "first person" letters from Paul, the Pauline source is considered superior.


There could be many explanations for this. It doesn't mean that the Biblical text was changed for some doctrinal reason, nor does it prove that anything else was altered.


Perhaps. But only perhaps.

And anyway, there's little reason to think that most of the words attributed to Jesus are anything other than narrative devices used by Scriptural authors to prove their own points. Why assume Jesus said much, if anything, of what is ascribed to him in the text?

Kirk

Some people have said it but some people say anything. You're right - that is irrelevant.

The contradictions on the other hand, are not. The Church claims the Gospels are divinely inspired - I put it to you that contradictions in an alleged divine document are indications of a human hand far more than a divine one.

So we are back at a divine document (allegedly) that contains discrepancies that can only be explained by a) tampering or b) non divine origin.

It is a legitimate question to ask which one it is.

Which one do you go for - a or b ?

Not all Christians believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. As a Christian, I can say that I don't believe that. I believe that the Bible is a combination of historical fact mixed with stories that pre-date the birth of Christ. There is a lot of evidence to support my belief and I will supply some if asked.

I also believe that the writers of the Gospels decided to include/exclude things in the effort to lead readers down certain paths. To me this means that truth can be found in the Gospels, but that it is not obvious to any one person. You must remember that we live almost 2000 years after the fact. We don't know for certain who wrote the Gospels, what their level of education was, what their background was. We can be fairly certain of some things, such as Mark and Matthew being Jewish and writing for a Jewish audience, but to know the exact words as spoken by Jesus and their exact meaning? That's ludicrous to assume we can know that as nobody recorded (on paper, stone, etc.) exactly what Jesus said and when he said it. What we have in the Gospels is a result of an oral tradition and none of it is first hand.

Yesterday I met someone who believes that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, i.e. without error. It amazes me that a college educated person in today's day and age can believe that. She explained discrepancies in the Gospels as merely 'forgotten information', such as 'Oh yeah, I forgot that it snowed last Monday'. Clearly the virgin birth and ascention are key to Catholic beliefs, yet the Gospel of Mark makes no mention of them. It is possible that Mark just didn't want to write about them, but it is more likely (due to the significance of those events) that they just didn't happen. If Mark was divinely inspired how could he have missed those important events in his Gospel and if all Gospel writers were divinely inspired, why are there significant discrepancies between them? Who is to say that the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip were not divinely inspired?

It also begs the question:

if Jesus wanted his actions and words to be recorded and serve as a guiding light why didn't he make sure such was done during his lifetime and under his supervision, so as to ensure the accuracy of his message?

The answer is a simple one: because he had no intention whatsoever of founding a new religion and saw himself entirely in a Jewish (ie Messianic) context.

ie: he was dellusional


and a question: if Speaking in toungues is divinely inspired . . . why can't god make any sense?

The Church says the Gospels are inspired, but written by human hands. They are not inerrant on all matters, and are filtered through the fallible lens of human memory.

Don't confuse the textured, respectable position of historical branches like Catholicism or Orthodoxy with the absurd, absolutist, "it's all inerrant" nonsense of fundamentalist "churches."

Kirk

All I'm suggesting is that we use a little common sense when we examine the Jesus story as it in the Gospels today. People have emotional motives for their actions. I pointed out the obvious emotional motives as to why the Jesus story, wasn't as we have it today - and why the spin on the story cannot be accurate.

Place yourself in the shoes of Jesus - an ancient Israeli living under the brutal occupation of Rome. You see the sovereignty of your country usurped by a foreign Governor and a puppet regime subservient to him. You see the currency and thereby economy of your country undermined by the currency of Rome. You see your economy and country side raped and pillaged to serve the imperial designs of Rome. You see your culture and religion undermined by Hellenistic/Roman constructions. You see your language and ethnicity undermined by the infusion of foreigners. You see your people murdered left and right in the most vicious and brutal of methods. In short, you see your dignity, your identity, forcibly undermined under the murderous imperial boot of Rome. How do you think Jesus would have felt about this? Do you really believe anyone in the country was sympathetic towards the Romans?

we're talking religion here . . .you can't be common sensical!

The movie is getting killed in the reviews. 33% so far among cream of the crop reviews at rt.

I doubt most reviewers are able to remain objective wrt this movie.

About whether the Gospels were "changed:"

1. The Gospels themselves show changes, from the earliest (Mark - and by the way, as far as I know, no one really knows who wrote Mark, but the best guess is that it was a follower of Peter rather than a disciple of Jesus himself), which for example doesn't mention a virgin birth, and was directed mostly at Jews, and then to whoever wrote Matthew, who, writing for a gentile audience, started getting hard on the Jews and the Pharisees, and made Jesus more divine.

2. There are a number of passages in the Gospels that I think are pretty much universally agreed upon as forgeries or later additions. The "throw the first stone story" for example.

3. There seem to multiple versions of just about all the Gospels, albeit with minor details changed rather than big things. According to that letter of Clement, Mark in particular seems to have had major sections removed from the Bible we all use today. That's where the whole "Jesus is gay" business game from, because of the passage about Jesus spending the night with a young man in a cave or whatever it was. I believe that's again pretty much universally agreed upon by historians.

1. The four Gospels weren't meant to be carbon copies for each other. They are four different accounts by people who interviewed different eyewitnesses and had personal recollections. The writer of a Gospel wasn't going to simply plagarize the Gospel written before him. Such behaviour is only acceptable in modern universities.

And if the Church was going to "change" or tamper" with the text, don't you think the accounts would be much more harmonious than they are? They've only had 2000 years to do it.

2. & 3. "universally agreed upon", "pretty much universally agreed upon by historians". I see the new sig hasn't had much of an effect on you.

Movie reviews are subjective, Scott. But the consensus is not very good.

Well I've been endeavoring to incorporate its philosophy into my posting style.

[edit]

I wanted to add that, as a non-believer, reading about the historical Jesus work has had a much more positive impact on me than any amount of Bible reading or sermon-listening. My basic view was always "well it's all BS so who cares." But after reading some of the historical analyses, I came to better appreciate how amazing this individual must have been to have such an impact on people. I'm still not quite sure what it was about him that made him so compelling - the apocalyptic stuff, the radical egalitarianism, the son of God, the miracles, etc. But he must have been an amazing person.

For example, there's one approach by one of the most prominent Jesus historians named Crossan who argues that the one of the keys to understanding Jesus is the influence of Hellenistic philosophies on him. He argues that Jesus shows enough similarities to the Cynic philosophy that it seems to have had a big impact on him. So Jesus was a Palestinian Jew living under Roman rule influenced by one of the greatest intellectual cultures of all time - Greece. It's sort of the ultimate in ancient multiculturalism. Of course it's just a theory, but it's as well researched and argued as any other, I suppose. And I find the idea of a Jewish Socrates kind of appealing.

He and others also argue that the parables have an interesting purpose. Apparently, scholars have had a tough time making sense of many of his parables. The closer you get to the original language and the historical period, the less sense they made. So one theory is that they were actually intended not to make sense. They were intended to put people into a state of "huh?" so their mind would be freed and they would understand God. Pretty interesting, IMO. So in that sense, he was more of a buddhist zen master using koans to mind fück his congregation into enlightenment. Of course, today, the parables have become sweet little stories that we've interpreted into comforting little aphorisms that we can hang up in our living rooms.

Anyway, I probably won't see the movie until it comes out on DVD, but in the meantime I'm just imagining a cross between "Jesus Christ Superstar" and the last half hour of Braveheart.

Saw it tonight. Wow. No words can suffice.

Saw the movie too- if you have a weak stomach for gore, do not see it. Think Black Hawk Down and worse in terms of gore/visuals with blood and guts, all obviously directed to one person. If you don't have much of a religious education/background of some sort, then it will be hard to pick up all of the characters. Few of the characters names are spoken in the movie, or in the traditional sense of a movie- very little character development. Otherwise, still processing this one.

I have to agree that the historical aspects of the thread have been entertaining and enlightening. Unfortunately I can't say the same for the bible or christianity itself.

There's not just one strain of Christianity Bunge - maybe you've been focussing on the wrong sort....

I believe that anyone who reviews this movie has to give a little of their own background. I would expect someone a Jew to have a higher probability of seeing the film as anti-Semetic than a Christian. I would expect a Christian to be more moved by the pain and suffering of Christ than a Jew. I would expect that some reviewers are more concerned about historical accuracy than whether or not the picture was well done while others will be completely turned off by violence and will ignore the message.

All I'm saying is that I expect most people to have biases one way or another before going into the movie and that they will have the tendancy to look for the things to strengthen their biases against Judaism or Christianity.