The Passion is a big winner

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Romans828
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.

Jesus was crucified 30 years after his crucifiction???

OMG, it must be true!

Paul was born after Jesus died. I hope you're not a fact checker.

And if truth be known, Christianity should really be called "Paulism" because Christians spend more time listening to Paul (a man who never met Jesus, but claimed to have "visions" of him more than 35 years after the fact) than they do to the supposed words of Jesus.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Jesus has to be a myth, because if he is as advertised by Christians, then that would put the whole concept of materialism into the toilet. Suddenly money would mean a great deal less and people more. We can't have that. It would go against everything conservatism has come to represent, even if conservatives and Christians who call themselves that don't think so. Jesus was a socialist.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Jesus has to be a myth, because if he is as advertised by Christians, then that would put the whole concept of materialism into the toilet. Suddenly money would mean a great deal less and people more. We can't have that. It would go against everything conservatism has come to represent, even if conservatives and Christians who call themselves that don't think so. Jesus was a socialist.

Socialist? No.

He was against wealth, but he did not advocate having a government oppress people and take it away. Nor did he advocate government run charities (socialist programs).

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Adul

Originally posted by: coldcut
The passion only costed $30 million to make.

costed???

Coldcut says, "Me fail English? That's unpossible!"

Maybe his grammer got accosted



Sysadmin

 

[Corporate Thug]

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.

^^^ voice of reason

 

[alkemyst]

I think google is a dangerous thing for many.

Fact is whether the Jesus story was crafted 10, 20, 30, 40 years later after it happened or not, if wrong it would have been shot down.

Miracles aside, there is no doubt that some man claiming to be the messiah was cruxified during this time period. Maybe he was the real 'jesus', maybe not....but it happened.

Also whatever name you call this 'guy' matters not. That is where many religous debates go bad....so many times everyone is fighting for the same end just by a different name.

Å

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Jesus has to be a myth, because if he is as advertised by Christians, then that would put the whole concept of materialism into the toilet. Suddenly money would mean a great deal less and people more. We can't have that. It would go against everything conservatism has come to represent, even if conservatives and Christians who call themselves that don't think so. Jesus was a socialist.

Socialist? No.

He was against wealth, but he did not advocate having a government oppress people and take it away. Nor did he advocate government run charities (socialist programs).

Actually, IIRC he wasn't against wealth per se, but saw it as a distraction from more important things. Wealth was irrelevent to him otherwise.

You are correct about him not being a socialist. He was a communist. I believe he would have found the niggardly attitude of people worse than a social program.

"All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)"

We can get into why social programs ought to exist or not, but that would be a separate topic.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

LOTR trivial? The USA wouldn't be what it is today without it. There would be no hippie culture whatsoever. Hate that if you want, but it's significant.

 

[BeefJurky]

davy crockett killed himself a berr when he was only 3! and i'm sure there's proof somewhere that he existed, too!

/don't hurt me

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: BeefJurky
davy crockett killed himself a berr when he was only 3! and i'm sure there's proof somewhere that he existed, too!

/don't hurt me

/me grabs beefjerky and smacks him against the wall and kicks him in his gut.

Davy Crockett was TWO when he killed himself that thar bar!

 

[BeefJurky]

oh, the pain! glaven!

 

[LAUST]

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

Road Warrior wins then

 

[Analog]

hurray for Gibson.

 

[virtuamike]

I want to watch Scorsese's Last Temptation but my Christian buddy won't because of the controversy. He believes The Passion to be non-fiction whereas Last Temptation was made "for the attention." Hypocrite.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Romans828
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.

Jesus was crucified 30 years after his crucifiction???

OMG, it must be true!

Paul was born after Jesus died. I hope you're not a fact checker.

And if truth be known, Christianity should really be called "Paulism" because Christians spend more time listening to Paul (a man who never met Jesus, but claimed to have "visions" of him more than 35 years after the fact) than they do to the supposed words of Jesus.

What is it that makes you so anti-Christian? The death of Christ was for you, brother, and all you need to do is humbly accept it; by his stripes you can be freed from being slave to sin. The truth of the good of Jesus should reveal to you the light of basis of faith.

I think google is a dangerous thing for many.

Fact is whether the Jesus story was crafted 10, 20, 30, 40 years later after it happened or not, if wrong it would have been shot down.

Miracles aside, there is no doubt that some man claiming to be the messiah was cruxified during this time period. Maybe he was the real 'jesus', maybe not....but it happened.

Also whatever name you call this 'guy' matters not. That is where many religous debates go bad....so many times everyone is fighting for the same end just by a different name.

Ã?

 

[Romans828]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Romans828
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.

Jesus was crucified 30 years after his crucifiction???

OMG, it must be true!

Paul was born after Jesus died. I hope you're not a fact checker.

And if truth be known, Christianity should really be called "Paulism" because Christians spend more time listening to Paul (a man who never met Jesus, but claimed to have "visions" of him more than 35 years after the fact) than they do to the supposed words of Jesus.

Re-read your completely wrong........

Where do you get that from my paragraph? Cant you read and comprehend?

Paul was a contempory of Jesus, Paul was converted 4 years after his death.

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: Amorphus

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: Amorphus

Originally posted by: brigden

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.

Lighten up.

Grow up.

Listen, troll, since when does having a healthy sense of humour equate being immature. Why don't you pull your head out of your arse and take a breath of fresh air.

I'm a troll, good sir? Do my ears decieve me?

This is not something you joke about. In fact, you are being immature. Jesus Christ is not an appropriate target for your (pl.) childish "witticisms". He died for a cause higher than anything of this world, so please, a little respect for the man, even if you are a disgruntled e-badass atheist.

Not everyone subscribes to the same beliefs that you do. And thanks for assuming I'm an athesist.

By the way, I'm not. Moron.

 

[0roo0roo]

doesn't matter. joseph smith existed and theres plenty of proof, same with david koresh. yet most people don't take that info and become mormons.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Well, everyone, at least be wise enough to not knock the man, even if you don't like the faith. There is enough circumstantial evidence that shows that Christ did exist. In US court, you don't have to have evidence that something happened if there is enough circumstantial evidence to make it obvious. Its obvious that Christ existed.

However, many people are anti-christian, or at least take the opportunity to shoot it down, simply because they don't think they need to hear "it"

Even if he didn't exist, the story is told of a man that died with the future of humanity in his heart. How can you curse that? If you needed a place to stay or food, Christ would have been the first person to open up to you. The man is not evil. Respect the man and what he stood for, even if you think the surrounding religion is false.

I'm not a buddhist, but I'm not going to sit hear and say that Buddha was a bad man. He was an excellent man. And I would have shown him the greatest respect in his presence.

The story of Christ is mostly the protect the psychology of the human mind. As the mind develops, and sins more and more, it will begin to feel more and more guilty and less pure. Without relief of this feeling of becoming evil through sin, the human mind will never be at rest.

I don't go to church often, or read the bible much, but I have no problem believing, logically, that Christ existed and died for us. Having that faith is a truly beautiful feeling.

 

[MacBaine]

Damn... I crucified this thread.

 

[PunDogg]

wish it had not main any, but glad it didn't come out on top

Dogg

 

[blakeatwork]

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

You as buddhist shouldn't be concerned about things of this nature...

Thank you, come again..

 

[cchen]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Well, everyone, at least be wise enough to not knock the man, even if you don't like the faith. There is enough circumstantial evidence that shows that Christ did exist. In US court, you don't have to have evidence that something happened if there is enough circumstantial evidence to make it obvious. Its obvious that Christ existed.

However, many people are anti-christian, or at least take the opportunity to shoot it down, simply because they don't think they need to hear "it"

Even if he didn't exist, the story is told of a man that died with the future of humanity in his heart. How can you curse that? If you needed a place to stay or food, Christ would have been the first person to open up to you. The man is not evil. Respect the man and what he stood for, even if you think the surrounding religion is false.

I'm not a buddhist, but I'm not going to sit hear and say that Buddha was a bad man. He was an excellent man. And I would have shown him the greatest respect in his presence.

The story of Christ is mostly the protect the psychology of the human mind. As the mind develops, and sins more and more, it will begin to feel more and more guilty and less pure. Without relief of this feeling of becoming evil through sin, the human mind will never be at rest.

I don't go to church often, or read the bible much, but I have no problem believing, logically, that Christ existed and died for us. Having that faith is a truly beautiful feeling.

good post :beer:

 

[HJB417]

Originally posted by: dxkj

Originally posted by: Adul
Man mel Gibson is going to make bank off of that movie.

Yup. His 25 million investment is going to turn into many hundreds of millions. Talk about a smart move! They even said he will get almost all of the profits (newmarket gets part).


Imagine how much it will garner total, including DVD sales, etc. I will probably go see it at the $2 theatre so thats another few bucks .

He'll probably make more once the pc game is released

there's already talks of a sequel.

 

[dxkj]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

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

Ah, the synoptic problem? The widest held solution to that is that Mark predates the other two, and that Matthew and Luke use a large chunk of mark, as well as another shared source "Q"

If you look into it the above answer makes sense. So at least one of them is original. So basically we have Mark, and John, as well as various other books that follow basedo n the belief that he was around. (acts, etc.