My friend studies history and archeology and he told me that today historic science teaches students that what it says in the bible, about jews being responsible for the death of Jesus, is actually wrong. That was a little detail added later when the roman empire took up christianity as its official religion, when it wouldn't be very good to have the blood of Christ on roman hands.
So they made up that bit about Pontius Pilatius offering the jews to set one of the captives free and the jews freeing the murderer (Barabbas was it?) rather than Jesus.
That's what I've read too.
I just started reading about historical views on the Bible and Jesus recently, partially as a result of this film. I did a little research, and the first book I bought was Gospel truth: The new image of Jesus emerging from science and history and why it matters. It got the best reviews as a balanced review of the research, with no wacky "Jesus was gay" theories but no punches pulled either. It's out of print, but I ordered it through Amazon and got it for about $10.
I haven't finished it yet (I haven't gotten to the crucifixion part), but it does seem to be a good objective overview of the research.
It as if someone went to a person born and raised rich and said "You can feed the homeless of this country if you only give it all up and become homeless yourself."
That'd be a pretty big sacrifice, to help others.
But it would kind of defeat the 'sacrifice' of it, if instead, the person knew that in a week they'd inherit another massive amount of money, and they'd be back in the pink, wouldn't it?
The facet that has yet to be mentioned Kick is that Jesus' inheritance is in that indescribable, unknowable eternal afterlife. The reason that Jesus' sacrifice was so groundbreaking, so different from others who have sacrificed their own lives is that they saved your mortal existence...Jesus was saving people's everlasting souls; an incredible differentiation and an astonishing new gift. This is the point that seems to be missed by a lot of topical discussion lately. The suffering was never the objective, it only underscored at what price it was bought.
My that's precisely my point - what was the 'price'? A few hours of physical suffering? By your own admission, in the face of what was gained, that's barely a token sacrifice.
It just seems out of whack to me is all... "He died!" "But he *knew* he was going to be resurrected, so it seems like a copout." "He suffered!" "Yes, so have many other people." "But he saved us all!" "In which case it seems like a pittance for him to have 'sacrificed' when his net total loss was a few hours of physical torment, period."
Am I making any sense?
Now, if he'd given up his eternal divine *soul*... that would be sacrifice.
Otherwise, it looks to me like it's saying that "the sum total of humanity's souls is worth a few hours of physical suffering" which flies smack in the face of "the greatest gift", you know? \
What if there is a seperation of consciousness between his mortal and his immortal soul? For example if he was a mortal who did not have any memory of before or any knowledge of what will happen after his life as a human.
Just a quick point: Aramaic isn't extinct - it is widely spoken in parts of Iraq and I have often attended Aramaic mass in the village of Ma'lula near Damascus in Syria.
I asked for links since my reading tells me that modern "academic opinion" dates the Gospels much earlier than previously thought and well within eyewitness timelines.
Dude. Where are your links?
Anyway.
I want to see the film very much. Jesus was way, way cool and I love Jesus-type films.
AN Wilson's book 'Jesus' is another pretty impartial account of the historical veracity of the New Testament and I recommend it. As I understand it, no-one really contests that the Gospels were written after the death of Christ.
'Veracity' is a big word too, so very religious types may safely disregard the rest of my post.
pfflam's right in that it's almost impossible to get your brain round the awfulness of the Holocaust.
Jesus was, and I emphasise this, not gay. He was cool.
Not that gay people can't be cool. Look at Rock Hudson.
The more I think about it, the more I wish they'd cast Arabs or Sephardi Jews as Jesus and Mary. Goshdarn it, you wouldn't cast a white person to play Mao Tse Tung, Martin Luther King, Osama bin Laden or Desmond Tutu. Give Jesus back to the Middle East, this stuff matters.
Did I not hear born again Mel tell Diane Sawyer that he feels GOD wanted him to make this movie? Someone correct me if I am wrong, please. I'm not saying Mel's a nut case, I just don't trust people with direct lines to GOD. History shows my distrust to be very well placed...
Why does GOD only communicate directly with white people? Hmmm.
I would say that arguably, we happen to be the most technologically dominant "sub-species" of the human race at the MOMENT. However, one can make a very good argument for our (white folk) spiritual, moral and ethical shallowness. The (in modern times...) material devouring=waste crazed adgenda that we have taught so well to the rest of the world. Our contribution to weapons technologies, ie, nuclear, biological and chemical... Man, we're the best. We rule! Heh, ok, ok. Just a couple more items; Joan of Arcadia and Oh God, 'nuff said.
Here's a nitpicker for you religious history buffs. Would not the Roman soldiers have "spoken" Greek at that time? Since Mel and crew are claiming historical accuracy.
Coptic Christians still use Aramaic in high mass i believe
anyway,
One thing that seems wrong to me is that people asume Jesus knew he was going to be resurrected . . . .
that is wrong, it seems that they simply overlook the one thing that Jesus said that may put into question their whole crystal cathedral edifice . . . how do you explain:
I asked for links since my reading tells me that modern "academic opinion" dates the Gospels much earlier than previously thought and well within eyewitness timelines.
From what I've been reading, Mark was the first to be written, and was probably the only one based on an eyewitness to Jesus - whoever wrote it was probably a companion/translator of Peter. It was probably written around the time of the war or just after, around 65-75.
Though I'm not sure why you have "academic opinion" in quotes.
Coptic Christians still use Aramaic in high mass i believe
anyway,
One thing that seems wrong to me is that people asume Jesus knew he was going to be resurrected . . . .
that is wrong, it seems that they simply overlook the one thing that Jesus said that may put into question their whole crystal cathedral edifice . . . how do you explain:
"why hast thou foresaken me?"
huh?
seems like he didn't know what was going on to me
I just finished reading this thread from start to finish, and I'm surprised that it took 3 pages of replies for someone to bring that up.
that is wrong, it seems that they simply overlook the one thing that Jesus said that may put into question their whole crystal cathedral edifice . . . how do you explain:
"why hast thou foresaken me?"
huh?
seems like he didn't know what was going on to me
Check out Psalm 22. From what I've read, whoever wrote the Gospels borrowed liberally from the Old Testament in order to give Jesus a kind of credibility that would come from linking him to the past - in that case, David. But that also brings into serious question whether Jesus actually said that, or it was just added in for good measure.
[edit]Wow, definitely check out Psalm 22. Here's more:
Quote:
For dogs have surrounded me.
A company of evildoers have enclosed me.
Like a lion, they pin my hands and feet.
22:17 I can count all of my bones.
They look and stare at me.
22:18 They divide my garments among them.
They cast lots for my clothing.
Isn't there a story in the Passions that the Roman guards cast lots for his clothing or something?
From what I've been reading, Mark was the first to be written, and was probably the only one based on an eyewitness to Jesus - whoever wrote it was probably a companion/translator of Peter. It was probably written around the time of the war or just after, around 65-75.
Though I'm not sure why you have "academic opinion" in quotes.
1. Just a light-hearted jab at my lack of links as well. I'll try to nail down the stuff I was reading on the weekend.
2. With regard to Kickaha's questions, there is a truly stunning scene in the opening of the film. I won't spoil it for you, but it does deal with the "genesis" of the whole reason he had to die.
Christian theology holds that Man was created without sin, and God could fellowship with mankind on Earth and did frequently. When Man sinned, we broke that connection.
We haven't figured out all the natural laws of the universe, yet alone the Spiritual ones. But the Bible states that the penalty for sinning against God is death. All descendants of Adam have since been born with the Curse of Sin hanging over their heads.
God, being Love personified, didn't want to leave His creation in this sorry state. Since the whole mess started with the sin of one perfect man, the death of one perfect man would "redeem" mankind from the Curse. But all children of Adam were tainted with sin, and thus, imperfect.
We all get our sinful nature from our fathers who in turn got it from Adam. The Bible says that the sins of the Father pass on to the children. Thus, if you have no earthly father, you have no sinful nature.
Thus Jesus' death is viewed as payment for our sins. His rising from the dead doesn't negate that payment. Even in our laws, if one person gets the death penalty for someone else crime, the other person can't be charged for it. And if we execute someone and he is confirmed to be dead and then comes back to life, we can't execute him again.
Sorry Kickaha, for the long and probably boring post, but I couldn't figure out how to explain my understanding of this any other way.
The truth is that the actions of the Jewish leadership did coerce the Romans to put Christ to death?
The only formal Jewish leadership in Judea at the time, was the one appointed by Rome, and under Roman control and supervision.
It is preposterous to claim that the appointed puppet-show from a subjugated backwater would coerce the mighty empire to anything.
Quote:
Constantine converted to Christianity after a vision from God helped him win a crucial battle for control of the Roman Empire. In wasn't until he became emporer (around 400 AD) that the Empire converted to Christianity.
At the battle of Pons Milvius, in 312, Constantine is said to have seen a Christian sign in the sky, with the inscription ?in hoc Signo vinces? (that's where the acronym IHS, common on various old documents. comes from), the sign is supposed to have been not a cross, but a chrism, composed of the Greek letters X (χ ) and P (ρ ).
In 313, Constantine enacts the edict of Milan, which legalises the Christian religion (Religio licita) throughout his domains which is approved by his associate licinius (who is removed from imperial competition soon after, but let's not digress).
Constantine favourises the Church, but in exchange demands that it resolves its various doctrianire disputes, at the oecumenical conciles.
The Church had been organising itself on the ipierial model even while underground, so it goes in a direction already taken.
But Constantine himself did not convert to Chritsanity until his agony.
After his death, Christianity was making inroads, but not without resistence. For a few years it seemed Hellenic paganism was back with a vengeance, during the short rule of Emperor Julian ?the Apostate?. But after Julian dies while battling the Persians, Christianity is again, on the way up.
But only in 379, did Emperor Theodosius enact the edict named after him, making Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. He was also the last ruler of a united empire. After his death, the empire was formally divided in two empires, one of Occident (capital: Rome) and one of Orient (capital: Constantinople), each with its ownb separate insitutions.
By 476, the last western emperor, Romulus Augustulues is deposed by the Skyre chieftain Odoacer, who dissolves the mepires and sends the western imperial insigniae to Constantinople, to the eastern emperor Zeno. The eastern empire was to last till 1453, it's usually referred to as ?Byzantine?.
Gradually, the old ways are repressed. When Alaric besieges Rome, the authorities exceptionally allow overt sacrifices the old gods, but that was not to last.
In 529 an edict of eastern emperor Justinian (who lead a temporary imperial recovery of some western domains, like Italy, North Africa, and a southern part of Spain) closes for good the philosophical schools of Athens, the last organised bastion of the old teachings.
Quote:
In the 1940's two discoveries were made, one in Egypt and one at the Dead Sea (the Dead Sea Scrolls) revealed many other writings of the early church, including the writings that had been outlawed by Constantine. Amongst these was the Gospel of Thomas, written around the time of the Gospel of John.
If any document called ?gospel? was found among those scrolls it would have been widely publicised. Feel free to look for a ?Gospel of Thomas? in the scroll book repository.
While some scholars, such as Michael Wise and Robert Eisenmann, claim the community which possessed the scrolls was the actual Nazarenes, but most of the scholarly learned peers are presently far from convinced.
Comments
Originally posted by KANE
My friend studies history and archeology and he told me that today historic science teaches students that what it says in the bible, about jews being responsible for the death of Jesus, is actually wrong. That was a little detail added later when the roman empire took up christianity as its official religion, when it wouldn't be very good to have the blood of Christ on roman hands.
So they made up that bit about Pontius Pilatius offering the jews to set one of the captives free and the jews freeing the murderer (Barabbas was it?) rather than Jesus.
That's what I've read too.
I just started reading about historical views on the Bible and Jesus recently, partially as a result of this film. I did a little research, and the first book I bought was Gospel truth: The new image of Jesus emerging from science and history and why it matters. It got the best reviews as a balanced review of the research, with no wacky "Jesus was gay" theories but no punches pulled either. It's out of print, but I ordered it through Amazon and got it for about $10.
I haven't finished it yet (I haven't gotten to the crucifixion part), but it does seem to be a good objective overview of the research.
Originally posted by Frank777
academic opinion, scrutiny, rigorous analysis, undoubtedly.
Big words. No links.
I've got a new sig!
Originally posted by BRussell
I've got a new sig!
nice sig man
Originally posted by BRussell
I've got a new sig!
Glad to be of service.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Well said, segovius.
It as if someone went to a person born and raised rich and said "You can feed the homeless of this country if you only give it all up and become homeless yourself."
That'd be a pretty big sacrifice, to help others.
But it would kind of defeat the 'sacrifice' of it, if instead, the person knew that in a week they'd inherit another massive amount of money, and they'd be back in the pink, wouldn't it?
The facet that has yet to be mentioned Kick is that Jesus' inheritance is in that indescribable, unknowable eternal afterlife. The reason that Jesus' sacrifice was so groundbreaking, so different from others who have sacrificed their own lives is that they saved your mortal existence...Jesus was saving people's everlasting souls; an incredible differentiation and an astonishing new gift. This is the point that seems to be missed by a lot of topical discussion lately. The suffering was never the objective, it only underscored at what price it was bought.
This thread is one of the best I've seen lately.
Anti-semite and bizarro catholic cultist or no, let it not be said that Mel doesn't know how to make bank.
My that's precisely my point - what was the 'price'? A few hours of physical suffering? By your own admission, in the face of what was gained, that's barely a token sacrifice.
It just seems out of whack to me is all... "He died!" "But he *knew* he was going to be resurrected, so it seems like a copout." "He suffered!" "Yes, so have many other people." "But he saved us all!" "In which case it seems like a pittance for him to have 'sacrificed' when his net total loss was a few hours of physical torment, period."
Am I making any sense?
Now, if he'd given up his eternal divine *soul*... that would be sacrifice.
Otherwise, it looks to me like it's saying that "the sum total of humanity's souls is worth a few hours of physical suffering" which flies smack in the face of "the greatest gift", you know?
Originally posted by segovius
Just a quick point: Aramaic isn't extinct - it is widely spoken in parts of Iraq and I have often attended Aramaic mass in the village of Ma'lula near Damascus in Syria.
Holy shit. Wow.
Originally posted by Frank777
I asked for links since my reading tells me that modern "academic opinion" dates the Gospels much earlier than previously thought and well within eyewitness timelines.
Dude. Where are your links?
Anyway.
Did I not hear born again Mel tell Diane Sawyer that he feels GOD wanted him to make this movie? Someone correct me if I am wrong, please. I'm not saying Mel's a nut case, I just don't trust people with direct lines to GOD. History shows my distrust to be very well placed...
Why does GOD only communicate directly with white people? Hmmm.
I would say that arguably, we happen to be the most technologically dominant "sub-species" of the human race at the MOMENT. However, one can make a very good argument for our (white folk) spiritual, moral and ethical shallowness. The (in modern times...) material devouring=waste crazed adgenda that we have taught so well to the rest of the world. Our contribution to weapons technologies, ie, nuclear, biological and chemical... Man, we're the best. We rule! Heh, ok, ok. Just a couple more items; Joan of Arcadia and Oh God, 'nuff said.
Here's a nitpicker for you religious history buffs. Would not the Roman soldiers have "spoken" Greek at that time? Since Mel and crew are claiming historical accuracy.
anyway,
One thing that seems wrong to me is that people asume Jesus knew he was going to be resurrected . . . .
that is wrong, it seems that they simply overlook the one thing that Jesus said that may put into question their whole crystal cathedral edifice . . . how do you explain:
"why hast thou foresaken me?"
huh?
seems like he didn't know what was going on to me
Originally posted by Frank777
I asked for links since my reading tells me that modern "academic opinion" dates the Gospels much earlier than previously thought and well within eyewitness timelines.
From what I've been reading, Mark was the first to be written, and was probably the only one based on an eyewitness to Jesus - whoever wrote it was probably a companion/translator of Peter. It was probably written around the time of the war or just after, around 65-75.
Though I'm not sure why you have "academic opinion" in quotes.
Originally posted by pfflam
Coptic Christians still use Aramaic in high mass i believe
anyway,
One thing that seems wrong to me is that people asume Jesus knew he was going to be resurrected . . . .
that is wrong, it seems that they simply overlook the one thing that Jesus said that may put into question their whole crystal cathedral edifice . . . how do you explain:
"why hast thou foresaken me?"
huh?
seems like he didn't know what was going on to me
I just finished reading this thread from start to finish, and I'm surprised that it took 3 pages of replies for someone to bring that up.
Excellent discussion thus far!
Originally posted by pfflam
that is wrong, it seems that they simply overlook the one thing that Jesus said that may put into question their whole crystal cathedral edifice . . . how do you explain:
"why hast thou foresaken me?"
huh?
seems like he didn't know what was going on to me
Check out Psalm 22. From what I've read, whoever wrote the Gospels borrowed liberally from the Old Testament in order to give Jesus a kind of credibility that would come from linking him to the past - in that case, David. But that also brings into serious question whether Jesus actually said that, or it was just added in for good measure.
[edit]Wow, definitely check out Psalm 22. Here's more:
For dogs have surrounded me.
A company of evildoers have enclosed me.
Like a lion, they pin my hands and feet.
22:17 I can count all of my bones.
They look and stare at me.
22:18 They divide my garments among them.
They cast lots for my clothing.
Isn't there a story in the Passions that the Roman guards cast lots for his clothing or something?
Originally posted by Daver
Excellent discussion thus far!
Shhhh! You're gonna jinx it!
Originally posted by BRussell
From what I've been reading, Mark was the first to be written, and was probably the only one based on an eyewitness to Jesus - whoever wrote it was probably a companion/translator of Peter. It was probably written around the time of the war or just after, around 65-75.
Though I'm not sure why you have "academic opinion" in quotes.
1. Just a light-hearted jab at my lack of links as well. I'll try to nail down the stuff I was reading on the weekend.
2. With regard to Kickaha's questions, there is a truly stunning scene in the opening of the film. I won't spoil it for you, but it does deal with the "genesis" of the whole reason he had to die.
Christian theology holds that Man was created without sin, and God could fellowship with mankind on Earth and did frequently. When Man sinned, we broke that connection.
We haven't figured out all the natural laws of the universe, yet alone the Spiritual ones. But the Bible states that the penalty for sinning against God is death. All descendants of Adam have since been born with the Curse of Sin hanging over their heads.
God, being Love personified, didn't want to leave His creation in this sorry state. Since the whole mess started with the sin of one perfect man, the death of one perfect man would "redeem" mankind from the Curse. But all children of Adam were tainted with sin, and thus, imperfect.
We all get our sinful nature from our fathers who in turn got it from Adam. The Bible says that the sins of the Father pass on to the children. Thus, if you have no earthly father, you have no sinful nature.
Thus Jesus' death is viewed as payment for our sins. His rising from the dead doesn't negate that payment. Even in our laws, if one person gets the death penalty for someone else crime, the other person can't be charged for it. And if we execute someone and he is confirmed to be dead and then comes back to life, we can't execute him again.
Sorry Kickaha, for the long and probably boring post, but I couldn't figure out how to explain my understanding of this any other way.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Shhhh! You're gonna jinx it!
ehem
Originally posted by rogue master
The truth is that the actions of the Jewish leadership did coerce the Romans to put Christ to death?
The only formal Jewish leadership in Judea at the time, was the one appointed by Rome, and under Roman control and supervision.
It is preposterous to claim that the appointed puppet-show from a subjugated backwater would coerce the mighty empire to anything.
Constantine converted to Christianity after a vision from God helped him win a crucial battle for control of the Roman Empire. In wasn't until he became emporer (around 400 AD) that the Empire converted to Christianity.
At the battle of Pons Milvius, in 312, Constantine is said to have seen a Christian sign in the sky, with the inscription ?in hoc Signo vinces? (that's where the acronym IHS, common on various old documents. comes from), the sign is supposed to have been not a cross, but a chrism, composed of the Greek letters X (χ ) and P (ρ ).
In 313, Constantine enacts the edict of Milan, which legalises the Christian religion (Religio licita) throughout his domains which is approved by his associate licinius (who is removed from imperial competition soon after, but let's not digress).
Constantine favourises the Church, but in exchange demands that it resolves its various doctrianire disputes, at the oecumenical conciles.
The Church had been organising itself on the ipierial model even while underground, so it goes in a direction already taken.
But Constantine himself did not convert to Chritsanity until his agony.
After his death, Christianity was making inroads, but not without resistence. For a few years it seemed Hellenic paganism was back with a vengeance, during the short rule of Emperor Julian ?the Apostate?. But after Julian dies while battling the Persians, Christianity is again, on the way up.
But only in 379, did Emperor Theodosius enact the edict named after him, making Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. He was also the last ruler of a united empire. After his death, the empire was formally divided in two empires, one of Occident (capital: Rome) and one of Orient (capital: Constantinople), each with its ownb separate insitutions.
By 476, the last western emperor, Romulus Augustulues is deposed by the Skyre chieftain Odoacer, who dissolves the mepires and sends the western imperial insigniae to Constantinople, to the eastern emperor Zeno. The eastern empire was to last till 1453, it's usually referred to as ?Byzantine?.
Gradually, the old ways are repressed. When Alaric besieges Rome, the authorities exceptionally allow overt sacrifices the old gods, but that was not to last.
In 529 an edict of eastern emperor Justinian (who lead a temporary imperial recovery of some western domains, like Italy, North Africa, and a southern part of Spain) closes for good the philosophical schools of Athens, the last organised bastion of the old teachings.
In the 1940's two discoveries were made, one in Egypt and one at the Dead Sea (the Dead Sea Scrolls) revealed many other writings of the early church, including the writings that had been outlawed by Constantine. Amongst these was the Gospel of Thomas, written around the time of the Gospel of John.
If any document called ?gospel? was found among those scrolls it would have been widely publicised. Feel free to look for a ?Gospel of Thomas? in the scroll book repository.
While some scholars, such as Michael Wise and Robert Eisenmann, claim the community which possessed the scrolls was the actual Nazarenes, but most of the scholarly learned peers are presently far from convinced.