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 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.
I see the new sig hasn't had much of an effect on you.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
God doesn't like it when you rattle your Goobers® bag...
Flashing light at Drudge:
KAKE TV in Wichita, Kansas set report to a woman, in her 50s, suffered a heart attack during a morning screening of Mel Gibson's controversial film PASSION OF THE CHRIST. "She later died at the hospital," a station source tells the DRUDGE REPORT. The report is scheduled to be lead story on the station's 5 PM news. "She went into seizure during one of the film's most dramatic moments," a station source explains. The woman attended a 9:30am screening at Warren East Theaters in Wichita... Developing...
...and turn off your damn cell phone. I can't hear the Aramaic...
There's not just one strain of Christianity Bunge - maybe you've been focussing on the wrong sort....
Contrary to popular belief, there are more than a few Christians out there who don't think that women should be slaves to men, gays/lesbians are going to Hell, or that the earth is 10,000 years old.
Don't be fooled by idiotic impostors like Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell et al. just because someone calls himself/herself as a "Christian" doesn't mean that they are.
Don't be fooled by idiotic impostors like Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell et al. just because someone calls himself/herself as a "Christian" doesn't mean that they are.
It's one of the real oddities of religion and current politics, that so many religious people are so conservative. They seem to not go together. Yeah, I know there are liberal Christians too. Maybe the Religious Right just gets all the attention.
I heard a few radio show callers review this flick today. They kept saying it'd be a "wake-up call for non-believers" like me. Excuse me while I sleep in...
aside from all the debate, it pisses me off that people dont like it ONLY because of the gore and violence. what did they expect??? its the bible!
Why is this movie called "overly violent" but matrix 3 (the peice of shit it was, hay kiono, give me my $8.50 back)was called things like "A thrill a second" and an exersise in "superb story telling" by the same critics?
some say that this is a historical documentory, and as such it is ''overly violent, if this is the case, where was the rage against Band of Brothers (HBO) and Saving private ryan?
and one more thing, looking at this historicly, NOT religously, it is a story of a crusifiction, this is not a damnd tea party!! when one is hanged on a cross, there is cretainly violence involved
Comments
Originally posted by Kirkland
...
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.
Originally posted by BRussell
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.
Originally posted by Scott
I doubt most reviewers are able to remain objective wrt this movie.
Movie reviews are subjective, Scott.
Originally posted by Frank777
I see the new sig hasn't had much of an effect on you.
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.
Originally posted by BRussell
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.
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.
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.
We're all informed by ideology.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Saw it tonight. Wow. No words can suffice.
that bad hunh?!?
ok . . I'm convinced . . . I'll avoid it like the plague
Originally posted by ipodandimac
what did they expect??? its the bible!
Some sex?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/sex/long.htm
Flashing light at Drudge:
KAKE TV in Wichita, Kansas set report to a woman, in her 50s, suffered a heart attack during a morning screening of Mel Gibson's controversial film PASSION OF THE CHRIST. "She later died at the hospital," a station source tells the DRUDGE REPORT. The report is scheduled to be lead story on the station's 5 PM news. "She went into seizure during one of the film's most dramatic moments," a station source explains. The woman attended a 9:30am screening at Warren East Theaters in Wichita... Developing...
...and turn off your damn cell phone. I can't hear the Aramaic...
http://tbogg.blogspot.com/
Originally posted by segovius
There's not just one strain of Christianity Bunge - maybe you've been focussing on the wrong sort....
Contrary to popular belief, there are more than a few Christians out there who don't think that women should be slaves to men, gays/lesbians are going to Hell, or that the earth is 10,000 years old.
David Walker's Liberal Christian Homepage
The United Church of Canada -- Support for Same-Sex Marriages
Don't be fooled by idiotic impostors like Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell et al. just because someone calls himself/herself as a "Christian" doesn't mean that they are.
Originally posted by rampancy
Don't be fooled by idiotic impostors like Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell et al. just because someone calls himself/herself as a "Christian" doesn't mean that they are.
It's one of the real oddities of religion and current politics, that so many religious people are so conservative. They seem to not go together. Yeah, I know there are liberal Christians too. Maybe the Religious Right just gets all the attention.
I was raised catholic... I hit the snooze button years ago.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
aside from all the debate, it pisses me off that people dont like it ONLY because of the gore and violence. what did they expect??? its the bible!
Why is this movie called "overly violent" but matrix 3 (the peice of shit it was, hay kiono, give me my $8.50 back)was called things like "A thrill a second" and an exersise in "superb story telling" by the same critics?
some say that this is a historical documentory, and as such it is ''overly violent, if this is the case, where was the rage against Band of Brothers (HBO) and Saving private ryan?
and one more thing, looking at this historicly, NOT religously, it is a story of a crusifiction, this is not a damnd tea party!! when one is hanged on a cross, there is cretainly violence involved
Might as well watch Friday the 13th or Halloween.