The Passion is a big winner

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,506
20,119
146
Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: m2kewl
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: NFS4
The fact that you people are bragging about ROTK beating The Passion of Christ is really childish IMHO.

Seeing "Passion" was a moving experience for me (even as a person who isn't all that in touch with his religious keepings) and is not even on the same level as something as trivial as ROTK.

Maybe for some people (you know, the type that dressed up like wizards, hobbits, and such) found the LOTR trilogy to be a moving, epic, and most memorable movie ever, too. I'm sure that there are lots of people out there that find The Passion of the Christ trivial as well.

yeah, 2 months ago everyone here and their grandmothers thought ROTK was the biggest thing since sliced bread.

I just find it hard to compare a movie about wizards and fuggin' dwarfs comparable to the retelling of a work from the Bible.

They're both works of fiction... I don't see what the problem is?

agreed

we have secular historical accounts of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus.

Um, no, we don't. We have retelling of stories being written down at least a generation after the fact for the earliest written account.

What you have is historical accounts of stories told years after the claimed events happened.


Try

Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian
Suetonius, another Roman historian
Plinius Secundus, Pliny The Younger
Thallus, a Samaritan born historian
Phlegon, a First Century Historian
Justin Martyr in 150 AD

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in regards to independent secular accounts of Jesus Christ, it has this to say: "These independent accounts prove that in the ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th and 19th , and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

It still requires faith though.......... Proving the "man" is one thing, Proving God is another

But those of us who know Jesus no the truth :D

Um, yoohoo...

Guess what?

NOT ONE of those accounts are from within a generation's time that Jesus is said to have died. They are all RETELLINGS and not a single one of them is a first hand account.

Try again.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: 1YellowPeril
Is it kosher for Gibson to pocket the profits? 10% to the Church? (He'll argue that the movie's net profit was <$0 :p )
What Gibson (or anyone else for that matter) gives to the Church is between him and God.

ZV
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
48
91
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: m2kewl
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: NFS4
The fact that you people are bragging about ROTK beating The Passion of Christ is really childish IMHO.

Seeing "Passion" was a moving experience for me (even as a person who isn't all that in touch with his religious keepings) and is not even on the same level as something as trivial as ROTK.

Maybe for some people (you know, the type that dressed up like wizards, hobbits, and such) found the LOTR trilogy to be a moving, epic, and most memorable movie ever, too. I'm sure that there are lots of people out there that find The Passion of the Christ trivial as well.

yeah, 2 months ago everyone here and their grandmothers thought ROTK was the biggest thing since sliced bread.

I just find it hard to compare a movie about wizards and fuggin' dwarfs comparable to the retelling of a work from the Bible.

They're both works of fiction... I don't see what the problem is?

agreed

we have secular historical accounts of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus.

Um, no, we don't. We have retelling of stories being written down at least a generation after the fact for the earliest written account.

What you have is historical accounts of stories told years after the claimed events happened.


Try

Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian
Suetonius, another Roman historian
Plinius Secundus, Pliny The Younger
Thallus, a Samaritan born historian
Phlegon, a First Century Historian
Justin Martyr in 150 AD

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in regards to independent secular accounts of Jesus Christ, it has this to say: "These independent accounts prove that in the ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th and 19th , and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

It still requires faith though.......... Proving the "man" is one thing, Proving God is another

But those of us who know Jesus no the truth :D

Um, yoohoo...

Guess what?

NOT ONE of those accounts are from within a generation's time that Jesus is said to have died. They are all RETELLINGS and not a single one of them is a first hand account.

Try again.

What are the chances of their actually being a Jesus vs...

Some fuggin' hobbits, dwarfs, elves or magicians?
 

DorkBoy

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2000
3,591
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
At least ROTK beat it. Conclusion: Aragorn > Jesus.

Ah, but let's do a production cost/overhead vs ticket sales comparison :D

And lets see if Passion of Christ pulls in $365,000,000.00 and still going and going and going,.............

P.S. and that's not WorldWide either
 

Atlantean

Diamond Member
May 2, 2001
5,296
1
0
Originally posted by: m2kewl
Originally posted by: FallenHero
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
At least ROTK beat it. Conclusion: Aragorn > Jesus.

AMEN!

jesus = P/\WNED!


Dude check the numbers... Passion of the Christ grossed $76.2 million on opening weekend... ROTK made $72.63 million opening weekend hmm looks like someone can't do their math...
Highest weekend gross or do you mean that ROTK made more than this movie has??? well big freaking surprise ROTK has been out for a couple months now. Or perhaps you mean 5 day gross... well you got me there it did beat the 5 day gross but... this movie might make more than ROTK overall. But then also take a look at the number of theaters that each movie was playing in...3703 for ROTK, and 3043 for Passion.... now back to the topic at hand
Anyways Passion was a very moving movie, like nothing I have ever seen before.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,506
20,119
146
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: m2kewl
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: NFS4
The fact that you people are bragging about ROTK beating The Passion of Christ is really childish IMHO.

Seeing "Passion" was a moving experience for me (even as a person who isn't all that in touch with his religious keepings) and is not even on the same level as something as trivial as ROTK.

Maybe for some people (you know, the type that dressed up like wizards, hobbits, and such) found the LOTR trilogy to be a moving, epic, and most memorable movie ever, too. I'm sure that there are lots of people out there that find The Passion of the Christ trivial as well.

yeah, 2 months ago everyone here and their grandmothers thought ROTK was the biggest thing since sliced bread.

I just find it hard to compare a movie about wizards and fuggin' dwarfs comparable to the retelling of a work from the Bible.

They're both works of fiction... I don't see what the problem is?

agreed

we have secular historical accounts of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus.

Um, no, we don't. We have retelling of stories being written down at least a generation after the fact for the earliest written account.

What you have is historical accounts of stories told years after the claimed events happened.


Try

Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian
Suetonius, another Roman historian
Plinius Secundus, Pliny The Younger
Thallus, a Samaritan born historian
Phlegon, a First Century Historian
Justin Martyr in 150 AD

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in regards to independent secular accounts of Jesus Christ, it has this to say: "These independent accounts prove that in the ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th and 19th , and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

It still requires faith though.......... Proving the "man" is one thing, Proving God is another

But those of us who know Jesus no the truth :D

Um, yoohoo...

Guess what?

NOT ONE of those accounts are from within a generation's time that Jesus is said to have died. They are all RETELLINGS and not a single one of them is a first hand account.

Try again.

What are the chances of their actually being a Jesus vs...

Some fuggin' hobbits, dwarfs, elves or magicians?

That depends on if you think Jesus was divine, performed miracles and rose from the dead. If so, I'd say the chances are about even.

But I digress, that is not my point. My point was to shoot the claim that there is/was positive, contemporary proof that Jesus lived. There was not. Every account of him is second hand from at least a generation after his supposed death.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,506
20,119
146
Originally posted by: DorkBoy
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
At least ROTK beat it. Conclusion: Aragorn > Jesus.

Ah, but let's do a production cost/overhead vs ticket sales comparison :D

And lets see if Passion of Christ pulls in $365,000,000.00 and still going and going and going,.............

P.S. and that's not WorldWide either

Seeing as how it's beat ROTK in it's first weekend, I have no doubt it will beat that. I'm betting 400 million or more. And just wait for the DVD sales.

Let's not forget the bible is the bestselling book of all time, and consistantly beats all other books year in and year out. It stands to reason this movie could very well do the same.
 

Romans828

Banned
Feb 14, 2004
525
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: m2kewl
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: NFS4
The fact that you people are bragging about ROTK beating The Passion of Christ is really childish IMHO.

Seeing "Passion" was a moving experience for me (even as a person who isn't all that in touch with his religious keepings) and is not even on the same level as something as trivial as ROTK.

Maybe for some people (you know, the type that dressed up like wizards, hobbits, and such) found the LOTR trilogy to be a moving, epic, and most memorable movie ever, too. I'm sure that there are lots of people out there that find The Passion of the Christ trivial as well.

yeah, 2 months ago everyone here and their grandmothers thought ROTK was the biggest thing since sliced bread.

I just find it hard to compare a movie about wizards and fuggin' dwarfs comparable to the retelling of a work from the Bible.

They're both works of fiction... I don't see what the problem is?

agreed

we have secular historical accounts of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus.

Um, no, we don't. We have retelling of stories being written down at least a generation after the fact for the earliest written account.

What you have is historical accounts of stories told years after the claimed events happened.


Try

Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian
Suetonius, another Roman historian
Plinius Secundus, Pliny The Younger
Thallus, a Samaritan born historian
Phlegon, a First Century Historian
Justin Martyr in 150 AD

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in regards to independent secular accounts of Jesus Christ, it has this to say: "These independent accounts prove that in the ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th and 19th , and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

It still requires faith though.......... Proving the "man" is one thing, Proving God is another

But those of us who know Jesus no the truth :D

Um, yoohoo...

Guess what?

NOT ONE of those accounts are from within a generation's time that Jesus is said to have died. They are all RETELLINGS and not a single one of them is a first hand account.

Try again.

Never said they were friend..........

Try finding "first hand accounts" of ANY HISTORICAL FIGURE of that era.
Do you even know how historians go about extablishing "history". In any major historical record show me where Jesus is referred to as "possible", or "mythical" or "a fairy tale"...........

If you expect any thinking person to believe that Jesus never lived and was simply fabricated years later there is no point in talking. You might as well say the sky is green.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: Amused
But I digress, that is not my point. My point was to shoot the claim that there is/was positive, contemporary proof that Jesus lived. There was not. Every account of him is second hand from at least a generation after his supposed death.
Same goes for pre-socratic Greek philosophers. Socrates too, all we have to prove Socrates is Plato. Of course, Plato is chronologically closer to Socrates, but that's beside the point.

Do we have 100% conclusive proof? No. Do we have more proof than we have for the existance of other historical persons whose existances we take for granted? Yes.

ZV

EDIT: There is a Jesus recorded in the Roman records as having been crucified by Pilate. At least, I've been told that there is. I'm in the process of verifying it.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,506
20,119
146
Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: m2kewl
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: NFS4
The fact that you people are bragging about ROTK beating The Passion of Christ is really childish IMHO.

Seeing "Passion" was a moving experience for me (even as a person who isn't all that in touch with his religious keepings) and is not even on the same level as something as trivial as ROTK.

Maybe for some people (you know, the type that dressed up like wizards, hobbits, and such) found the LOTR trilogy to be a moving, epic, and most memorable movie ever, too. I'm sure that there are lots of people out there that find The Passion of the Christ trivial as well.

yeah, 2 months ago everyone here and their grandmothers thought ROTK was the biggest thing since sliced bread.

I just find it hard to compare a movie about wizards and fuggin' dwarfs comparable to the retelling of a work from the Bible.

They're both works of fiction... I don't see what the problem is?

agreed

we have secular historical accounts of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus.

Um, no, we don't. We have retelling of stories being written down at least a generation after the fact for the earliest written account.

What you have is historical accounts of stories told years after the claimed events happened.


Try

Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian
Suetonius, another Roman historian
Plinius Secundus, Pliny The Younger
Thallus, a Samaritan born historian
Phlegon, a First Century Historian
Justin Martyr in 150 AD

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in regards to independent secular accounts of Jesus Christ, it has this to say: "These independent accounts prove that in the ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th and 19th , and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

It still requires faith though.......... Proving the "man" is one thing, Proving God is another

But those of us who know Jesus no the truth :D

Um, yoohoo...

Guess what?

NOT ONE of those accounts are from within a generation's time that Jesus is said to have died. They are all RETELLINGS and not a single one of them is a first hand account.

Try again.

Never said they were friend..........

Try finding "first hand accounts" of ANY HISTORICAL FIGURE of that era.
Do you even know how historians go about extablishing "history". In any major historical record show me where Jesus is referred to as "possible", or "mythical" or "a fairy tale"...........

If you expect any thinking person to believe that Jesus never lived and was simply fabricated years later there is no point in talking. You might as well say the sky is green.

I'm not the one denying the obvious.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Could both of you perhaps kindly stop with the multitudes of nested quotations? One or two levels is fine but this is getting ridiculous. My screen is all stretched out.

ZV
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,506
20,119
146
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Amused
But I digress, that is not my point. My point was to shoot the claim that there is/was positive, contemporary proof that Jesus lived. There was not. Every account of him is second hand from at least a generation after his supposed death.
Same goes for pre-socratic Greek philosophers. Socrates too, all we have to prove Socrates is Plato. Of course, Plato is chronologically closer to Socrates, but that's beside the point.

Do we have 100% conclusive proof? No. Do we have more proof than we have for the existance of other historical persons whose existances we take for granted? Yes.

ZV

It comes down to a matter of believability, as well.

We have MANY patently unbelievable historical "proofs" of many myths. You rule out many of them based on how fantastic they may be.

It seems that in modern times, we rule out ALL the mythical "historical accounts" except this one.

Why?

Because it's the one tied to the current religion the majority of westerners believe in. Count out that faith, and we'd reject these accounts just like we reject accounts of Roman/Greek/Egyptian Gods, Atlantis and Mithras, etc...
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
Originally posted by: Romans828

Never said they were friend..........

Try finding "first hand accounts" of ANY HISTORICAL FIGURE of that era.
Do you even know how historians go about extablishing "history". In any major historical record show me where Jesus is referred to as "possible", or "mythical" or "a fairy tale"...........

If you expect any thinking person to believe that Jesus never lived and was simply fabricated years later there is no point in talking. You might as well say the sky is green.

And I guess you also believe Achilles was almost invulnerable, as told in the Illias? We do have other documents telling of people from those stories existing, so I guess the Greek gods must have been quite active as the book told!

Jesus may well have existed, but chances of the stuff in the Bible being actually true is about as high as those of the Illias being true.

Some stuff may be true, but most of it was just written to make some look better than others.
 

cchen

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,062
0
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Um, yoohoo...

Guess what?

NOT ONE of those accounts are from within a generation's time that Jesus is said to have died. They are all RETELLINGS and not a single one of them is a first hand account.

Try again.

The fact of the matter is, most historians have basically agreed that there was a person named Jesus from Nazareth, who was a Jew and Galilean, and fit the descriptions of whats told is many historical documents. So, I mean, you can think what you want, but I'm gonna go ahead and believe the historians.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,506
20,119
146
Originally posted by: cchen
Originally posted by: Amused
Um, yoohoo...

Guess what?

NOT ONE of those accounts are from within a generation's time that Jesus is said to have died. They are all RETELLINGS and not a single one of them is a first hand account.

Try again.

The fact of the matter is, most historians have basically agreed that there was a person named Jesus from Nazareth, who was a Jew and Galilean, and fit the descriptions of whats told is many historical documents. So, I mean, you can think what you want, but I'm gonna go ahead and believe the historians.

And I'll repeat this for you...

It comes down to a matter of believability, as well.

We have MANY patently unbelievable historical "proofs" of many myths. You rule out many of them based on how fantastic they may be.

It seems that in modern times, we rule out ALL the mythical "historical accounts" except this one.

Why?

Because it's the one tied to the current religion the majority of westerners believe in. Count out that faith, and we'd reject these accounts just like we reject accounts of Roman/Greek/Egyptian Gods, Atlantis and Mithras, etc...
 

Romans828

Banned
Feb 14, 2004
525
0
0
Originally posted by: illustri
Originally posted by: Romans828
How many of these ROTK fans (which I am one).........

Understand that its Christian allegory? LOL

link

In his last interview in 1971, Tolkien stated that he did not intend The Lord of the Rings as a Christian allegory and that Christ is not depicted in his fantasy novels.

back on topic, good for mel, good for christians
I as a buddhist am not fortunate to have such indulgences as having a popular big budget movie about my faith or its orgins

dunno if ill see the movie, it interests me as far as reading about reactions to it on atot, maybe when its "released" ill get it


There is much info on what Tolkien used as "influence" for his work. Your right to say he did not like allegory as a form, and denied his work was direct Christian allegory, but at that point he was basically caught with his hand in the cookie jar so to speak. His LOR story puts fourth his strong Christian ideals in obivious ways, and although he denied the straight allegory, others quickly saw the link.

I was simply trying to point out the influences driving the LOTR story
 

cchen

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,062
0
76
Originally posted by: Amused


And I'll repeat this for you...

It comes down to a matter of believability, as well.

We have MANY patently unbelievable historical "proofs" of many myths. You rule out many of them based on how fantastic they may be.

It seems that in modern times, we rule out ALL the mythical "historical accounts" except this one.

Why?

Because it's the one tied to the current religion the majority of westerners believe in. Count out that faith, and we'd reject these accounts just like we reject accounts of Roman/Greek/Egyptian Gods, Atlantis and Mithras, etc...

Solid reliable historians of the time, such a Jacotus, Jewish scholars (who despised Jesus), and Christians alike all confirm the existence of this man Jesus Christ. in fact, any educated historian will agree with his existence. Archaelogy have time and time again been discovering towns recounted in the Bible...places that once were called myths and just artificial stories are in fact being proven as we speak. the Bible itself, compared to any other book at that time was transcribed from speech into text the quickest, maintaining the accuracy (we never refute Homer's Oddysey as being totally inaccurate when that was written from speech hundreds of years more than the Bible). in addition, these perfectly identical books of the Bible were found in regions hundreds and hundreds of miles away diminishing the doubt of watering down the translation. I did digress a little bit with the things about the Bible but its the same principle...
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Amused
But I digress, that is not my point. My point was to shoot the claim that there is/was positive, contemporary proof that Jesus lived. There was not. Every account of him is second hand from at least a generation after his supposed death.
Same goes for pre-socratic Greek philosophers. Socrates too, all we have to prove Socrates is Plato. Of course, Plato is chronologically closer to Socrates, but that's beside the point.

Do we have 100% conclusive proof? No. Do we have more proof than we have for the existance of other historical persons whose existances we take for granted? Yes.

ZV
It comes down to a matter of believability, as well.

We have MANY patently unbelievable historical "proofs" of many myths. You rule out many of them based on how fantastic they may be.

It seems that in modern times, we rule out ALL the mythical "historical accounts" except this one.

Why?

Because it's the one tied to the current religion the majority of westerners believe in. Count out that faith, and we'd reject these accounts just like we reject accounts of Roman/Greek/Egyptian Gods, Atlantis and Mithras, etc...
I'm actually quite familiar with Mithras, who was a Persian sun god, born of a virgin, in a manger, who was given gifts by wise men as a child/infant, who went around teaching with his 12 desciples and who was killed only to rise from the dead in three days.

I'm not saying that we have any proof (beyond faith, which is personal) that this historical person who carried the name Jesus was the son of God. But it's pretty well established that there was, at the very least, a man with the name of Jesus who was crucified. I'm not making any claim on this man's divinity and I don't think that anyone else here is, at least not on the basis of historical eveidence.

ZV
 

Romans828

Banned
Feb 14, 2004
525
0
0

It seems that in modern times, we rule out ALL the mythical "historical accounts" except this one.



There is no reason to doubt the reality of Jesus as a historic figure. The gospel accounts are four different accounts from four different people. They were penned by either eyewitnesses or under the direction of the eyewitnesses. These same gospels were distributed throughout the region very quickly and we have no account anywhere on any of the contemporaries attempting to refute any of the facts written in them -- including those accounts dealing with the miracles of Jesus.
In order for Jesus to be a myth, it would have to be shown that the gospel accounts were highly embellished and inaccurately copied and transmitted. But, considering that there are other, non biblical accounts mentioning Jesus, it would be very difficult for anyone to demonstrate that He never lived.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: Romans828
It seems that in modern times, we rule out ALL the mythical "historical accounts" except this one.
There is no reason to doubt the reality of Jesus as a historic figure. The gospel accounts are four different accounts from four different people. They were penned by either eyewitnesses or under the direction of the eyewitnesses. These same gospels were distributed throughout the region very quickly and we have no account anywhere on any of the contemporaries attempting to refute any of the facts written in them -- including those accounts dealing with the miracles of Jesus.
In order for Jesus to be a myth, it would have to be shown that the gospel accounts were highly embellished and inaccurately copied and transmitted. But, considering that there are other, non biblical accounts mentioning Jesus, it would be very difficult for anyone to demonstrate that He never lived.
In all honesty, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are almost plagarizations of each other. What we have are three accounts that are strikingly similar and the John, which is oddly different from the first three.

And that's if you don't look at the Apocrypha or the Nag Hammandi gospels.

ZV
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,506
20,119
146
Originally posted by: cchen
Originally posted by: Amused


And I'll repeat this for you...

It comes down to a matter of believability, as well.

We have MANY patently unbelievable historical "proofs" of many myths. You rule out many of them based on how fantastic they may be.

It seems that in modern times, we rule out ALL the mythical "historical accounts" except this one.

Why?

Because it's the one tied to the current religion the majority of westerners believe in. Count out that faith, and we'd reject these accounts just like we reject accounts of Roman/Greek/Egyptian Gods, Atlantis and Mithras, etc...

Solid reliable historians of the time, such a Jacotus, Jewish scholars (who despised Jesus), and Christians alike all confirm the existence of this man Jesus Christ. in fact, any educated historian will agree with his existence. Archaelogy have time and time again been discovering towns recounted in the Bible...places that once were called myths and just artificial stories are in fact being proven as we speak. the Bible itself, compared to any other book at that time was transcribed from speech into text the quickest, maintaining the accuracy (we never refute Homer's Oddysey as being totally inaccurate when that was written from speech hundreds of years more than the Bible). in addition, these perfectly identical books of the Bible were found in regions hundreds and hundreds of miles away diminishing the doubt of watering down the translation. I did digress a little bit with the things about the Bible but its the same principle...

How can you confirm the existence of something you never saw or met? Again, ALL the accounts are from a generation or more AFTER the fact. Those people were not even alive then.

And guess what? If I show you the Movie "Forrest Gump" ALL the historical background events can be proven. All the towns are there and will be for future archaeologists.

Does that make Forrest Gump a true story?

Hell, MOST of our contemporary fictions take place in real cities and among real historical figures. Does that make all of Grisham's novels real?

 

Romans828

Banned
Feb 14, 2004
525
0
0
For consideration sake ........


If the Crucifixion was in 30 A.D., Paul's Conversion was as early as 34 A.D., and his first meeting in Jerusalem was around 37 A.D., then we could see that the time between the event of Christ's crucifixion and Paul receiving the information about His death, burial, and resurrection (in Jerusalem) would be as short as seven years (five if we use the earlier date). That is a very short period of time and hardly long enough for legend to creep in and corrupt the story. This is especially important since the apostles were alive and spoke with Paul. They were eyewitness accounts to Christ's death, burial, and post death appearances. Paul himself had seen the Lord Jesus prior to His death and after His resurrection (Acts 9). Paul's account agreed with the other Apostles' account and Paul wrote it down in 1 Cor. 15 around the year 54.
So, since 1 Corinthians was written as early as 54 A.D., that would mean that from the event (Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection) to writing it down is 24 years. That is a very short period of time. Remember, there were plenty of Christians around who could have corrected the writings of Paul if he was in error. But we have no record at all of any corrections or challenges to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ from anyone: Roman, Jew, or other Christians.
We must note here that some critics of the Bible claim that there is no extrabiblical evidence of Christ (not true) and that because of it, He didn't exist. The sword cuts both ways. If they can say that Jesus' events aren't real because there is no extrabiblical evidence mentioning them, then we can also say that since there are no extrabiblical accounts refuting the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, then it must be true. In other words, lack of extrabiblical writings does not prove that Christ did not live and did not die.
Furthermore, Paul corroborated the gospel accounts (He wrote before the gospels were written) and verified several things:

* Jesus was born in as a Jew (Gal. 4:4),
* Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23)
* and Jesus was crucified (Gal. 3:1; 1 Cor. 2:2; Phil. 2:8).
* Jesus was buried in rose again (1 Cor. 15:4; Rom. 6:4).

Obviously, Paul considered Jesus was a historical figure, not a legend or a myth. Furthermore, Paul was a man of great integrity who suffered much for his faith. He was not the kind of person to simply believe tall tales. After all, he was a devout Jew (a Pharisee) and a heavy persecutor of the Church. Something profound had to happen to him to get him to change his position, abandon the Jewish faith and tradition, suffer persecutions, whippings, jail, etc. The most likely event that fits the bill is that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again from the dead, and appeared to Paul, just as Luke said in Acts 9.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: cchen
Originally posted by: Amused


And I'll repeat this for you...

It comes down to a matter of believability, as well.

We have MANY patently unbelievable historical "proofs" of many myths. You rule out many of them based on how fantastic they may be.

It seems that in modern times, we rule out ALL the mythical "historical accounts" except this one.

Why?

Because it's the one tied to the current religion the majority of westerners believe in. Count out that faith, and we'd reject these accounts just like we reject accounts of Roman/Greek/Egyptian Gods, Atlantis and Mithras, etc...

Solid reliable historians of the time, such a Jacotus, Jewish scholars (who despised Jesus), and Christians alike all confirm the existence of this man Jesus Christ. in fact, any educated historian will agree with his existence. Archaelogy have time and time again been discovering towns recounted in the Bible...places that once were called myths and just artificial stories are in fact being proven as we speak. the Bible itself, compared to any other book at that time was transcribed from speech into text the quickest, maintaining the accuracy (we never refute Homer's Oddysey as being totally inaccurate when that was written from speech hundreds of years more than the Bible). in addition, these perfectly identical books of the Bible were found in regions hundreds and hundreds of miles away diminishing the doubt of watering down the translation. I did digress a little bit with the things about the Bible but its the same principle...

I thought that there were educated historians that questioned his existence...aren't there also books about it?