The Passion is a big winner

[Sid59]

i thought it'd end up massive. i saw it friday matinee (the last showing) and 2 screens were for church groups. that's power!


DAMN! I thought Against The Ropes was gonna dismantle Christ .. guess not =(

 

[adlep]

I have seen it tonight...
It was great...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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.

Um, no. Check your dates. Paul didn't have his visions until more than 30 years AFTER the DEATH of Jesus.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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.

Why do you think I'm anti-Christian? Because I question your beliefs?

In case you've missed this, and the last few threads on this movie I have SUPPORTED Gibson and his movie and decried the blacklisting and boos from the militant left.

I will fully support your right to believe in what you want. But if you try and tell me it is fact, I will debate that with you. If you try and convert me with mythical stories about saviors on a stick saving me from my sin, I'll point out how silly that sounds to me.

Can you SEE the difference here? I fully support your right to believe, but I also reserve MY right to debate your claims if you present them to me as fact.

Debate does not equal "anti." It's a sign of a thinking mind.

 

[Legendary]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

Um, no. Check your dates. Paul didn't have his visions until more than 30 years AFTER the DEATH of Jesus.

Amused - AD stands for Anno Domini (year or our lord) - Christ was supposedly born in 4 BC and killed in roughly 30 AD as mentioned.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I fully support your right to believe, but I also reserve MY right to debate your claims if you present them to me as fact.

Debate does not equal "anti." It's a sign of a thinking mind.

I'm sorry, i thought you where just mis-understanding what Romans8:24 was saying.

Jesus died about 30 ad, Paul was on his way to Damascus about 34 ad.

and we know that salvation sounds like foolishness to the unsaved; It's faith in the loving and incorruptible God, faith in the truth that is all that Jesus said and did.

 

[Romans828]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

I fully support your right to believe, but I also reserve MY right to debate your claims if you present them to me as fact.

Debate does not equal "anti." It's a sign of a thinking mind.

I'm sorry, i thought you where just mis-understanding what Romans8:24 was saying.

Jesus died about 30 ad, Paul was on his way to Damascus about 34 ad.

and we know that salvation sounds like foolishness to the unsaved; It's faith in the loving and incorruptible God, faith in the truth that is all that Jesus said and did.

Thanks for stepping in and helping to explain the date thing, I hope that clears a few things up

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

I fully support your right to believe, but I also reserve MY right to debate your claims if you present them to me as fact.

Debate does not equal "anti." It's a sign of a thinking mind.

I'm sorry, i thought you where just mis-understanding what Romans8:24 was saying.

Jesus died about 30 ad, Paul was on his way to Damascus about 34 ad.

and we know that salvation sounds like foolishness to the unsaved; It's faith in the loving and incorruptible God, faith in the truth that is all that Jesus said and did.

I'm "saved", and it still sounds foolish to me. What exactly is being "saved"? Realizing that you don't know it all? Realizing that there are questions out there that are impossible to answer, even today? No? I'd say that realization is much more important than any faith. I completely agree with Amused, it's a sign of a thinking mind. Not a mind that has become stagnant because it thinks it knows the answers.

I believe what is true to me, just like everybody else. The difference, I guess, is that I have the brains to question my faith. Why do I believe something? Because someone said so? Probably not.

Because I've experienced it myself? Much more likely.

God created plants to be self sufficient. They do not require intervention from him to exist and survive.

We are the same way. He made our universe run itself. No true God would care about all the stupid crap in the Bible. If you're a good person, you're a good person, and you know it. Nothing else matters.

If anything, it's more "karma" based. What goes around comes around. I have experienced "God" in my life. Everytime you find a nickel on the ground, narrowly avoid an accident, or stub your toe, or meet your next girlfriend because you happened to stop and take the time to pick up that nickel which lead you to miss the crosswalk. That's the universe working the way it was meant to.

I guess the point of that little mini rant was.. my Dad is what I call a "watier". He relies on his faith to "bring" him things, and that's what he does.. he sits and waits for it. Of course it never comes, whatever it may be, because.. life doesen't work like that. God didn't set life up to work like that. We are not his puppets; he doesen't control us with his guiding hand. He gave us that control.

Use it! :|

 

[JackBurton]

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

You Christians are all the same, talking about things you know nothing about? As always, Atheists know more about your religion than you do.

You give a nice lists of historians there. Have you read what those historians had to say about your Jesus, or are you merely repeating what your drones in your religious crowd pass off as support for their view? You are being lied to and you don't even care, as long as it paints the picture you want. Tell me, what did Josephus say about your Jesus?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
You Christians are all the same, talking about things you know nothing about? As always, Atheists know more about your religion than you do.

You give a nice lists of historians there. Have you read what those historians had to say about your Jesus, or are you merely repeating what your drones in your religious crowd pass off as support for their view? You are being lied to and you don't even care, as long as it paints the picture you want. Tell me, what did Josephus say about your Jesus?

Perhaps all of YOU idiots saying all the christians are wrong would be more believed if you had a concrete understanding of WTF you were even talking about.

What I have found on both sides is christian/atheist/agnostic/whatever, only know what they are told and what a few internet searches turn up. They are so gung-ho but won't even take classes available when offered at their school about these issues.

I can guarantee there is a lot that has been modified and exaggerated....the main problems lie in no one really understands the chronology of the events and what was going on at the same time and what things lead to other things. Also it's not only understanding one religion, it's a matter of understanding the other ones and the chronology of them.

The number 1 response anyone will give is "You are wrong" and the number 1 reason is "because I know".

That line of thinking is hypocritical and ignorant. If you can't back up your facts, zip it.

I have read books, internet sites, taken a couple classes on these things and I don't know what to think of it all. It's a very complex matter for some issues and other issues are trivial and easily explained (especially with a science background). I do know there is a 'Jesus' figure in many religions and his story is more or less the same. Now of course this could be a red herring well planted (and to say if people knew otherwise they just wouldn't agree means you fail to understand the way it worked....denial of Jesus = death for a long time).

Å

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Howard

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.

Why is one fiction more trivial than another?

because millions of people base and follow their lives around that fiction, which makes it very important to them.

By insulting it (whether you believe in God or not), you are insulting them. Even if your an athiest, no need to disprove other people's beliefs. Let them enjoy theirs, and you enjoy yours.

 

[colonel]

Jesus is the man, he is the best teacher this world can get.

 

[DougK62]

This movie won't have the staying power or ROTK. No chance. ROTK stuck around for so long because it was entertaining. The Passion is not very entertaining at all. It's the same reason that "Spiderman" makes big bucks and "Mystic River" doesn't.

The acting in The Passion was VERY well done.

The one thing that REALLY upset me when I went to see it was the audience. Several couples brought very young children to it - I'm talking 4-10 year olds. They were crying and extrememly pissed off but these asshole parents made these poor kids watch all that nastiness. I wanted to strangle those dumb bitches. I settled for giving them nasty looks and speaking with the manager after the show.

 

[StageLeft]

I think that passion will have relatively few repeat viewers. I've spoken to a lot of people who are glad they saw it but will not be seeing it again. In terms of first time viewers it is surely going to obliterate most other movies, because so many people want to see it. I guess we'll find out how much repeat viewers really contribute to a movie's longevity.

 

[JackBurton]

Perhaps all of YOU idiots saying all the christians are wrong would be more believed if you had a concrete understanding of WTF you were even talking about.

Hmm, that is like saying, all of YOU idiots saying all the Toothfairy believers are wrong would be more believed if you had a concrete understanding of WTF you were even talkign about.

What I have found on both sides is christian/atheist/agnostic/whatever, only know what they are told and what a few internet searches turn up. They are so gung-ho but won't even take classes available when offered at their school about these issues.

First off don't put Atheist and Christians in the same boat just to try and support your arguement. These are two TOTALLY different types of thinkers.

The number 1 response anyone will give is "You are wrong" and the number 1 reason is "because I know".

Buddy, this is exactly the response from Christians NOT Atheist or Agnostics. Atheist/Agnostics have to go out and freakin' disprove every freakin' fairytales these wackos come up with. And EVERTIME a Christian is beaten down with proof against their belief and they are left with nothing, their answer is ALWAYS, you just have to have faith. WTF kind of proof is that?

That line of thinking is hypocritical and ignorant. If you can't back up your facts, zip it.

All Atheists do is back up facts. Christians just don't want to listen. If you let the Christian respond to my question, I'll show you backing up facts. So take your own advise and STFU.

I have read books, internet sites, taken a couple classes on these things and I don't know what to think of it all. It's a very complex matter for some issues and other issues are trivial and easily explained (especially with a science background). I do know there is a 'Jesus' figure in many religions and his story is more or less the same. Now of course this could be a red herring well planted (and to say if people knew otherwise they just wouldn't agree means you fail to understand the way it worked....denial of Jesus = death for a long time).

That is amazing. You've done all that and you are still confused? Wow. I've done much more research than that, and I've found an answer. Maybe you just need to do a little more looking. Or maybe you are missing one key element, logic.

 

[iliopsoas]

Originally posted by: Amused

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

Wrong. There have been accounts of Jesus in Roman history, not in any way related to the Bible.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think that passion will have relatively few repeat viewers. I've spoken to a lot of people who are glad they saw it but will not be seeing it again. In terms of first time viewers it is surely going to obliterate most other movies, because so many people want to see it. I guess we'll find out how much repeat viewers really contribute to a movie's longevity.

It's like a road side accident. Everybody will see it just to find out what all the Hub Bub was about. That's the main reason I saw "The Last Temptation of Christ" when it first came out. Fortunately I thought it was a very entertaing movie. Hopefully when I get around to seeing Gibson's movie I will be pleasantly surprised too.

 

[Riprorin]

Tell me, what did Josephus say about your Jesus?

In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account:


About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Hmm, that is like saying, all of YOU idiots saying all the Toothfairy believers are wrong would be more believed if you had a concrete understanding of WTF you were even talkign about.

IT'S EXACTLY LIKE THAT

.... if the toothfairy can be proven I am all for seeing it done...it's doubtfully possible....

First off don't put Atheist and Christians in the same boat just to try and support your arguement. These are two TOTALLY different types of thinkers.

Again....perhaps you should justify why you think that they can't be lumped into the same category. These are very general groupings....there are major differences between both christians and athesists among themselves.

Buddy, this is exactly the response from Christians NOT Atheist or Agnostics. Atheist/Agnostics have to go out and freakin' disprove every freakin' fairytales these wackos come up with. And EVERTIME a Christian is beaten down with proof against their belief and they are left with nothing, their answer is ALWAYS, you just have to have faith. WTF kind of proof is that?

Here you go again....both the religious and the non-religious can prove things. You are thinking with a pea-sized brain, and I believe merely attempting to just throw mud. There are tons of things in religion that can be proved or disproved. The major one of God and if he exists is the one that relies solely on faith.

However, regardless, there is not one non-religious person I met that could explain scientifically without doubt what the origins of the universe and us are. So as far as proof goes, there really isn't any on either side. I am not taking a stand on this issue, however it is clear you are attempting to via brow-beating and not much along the way of proof.

All Atheists do is back up facts. Christians just don't want to listen. If you let the Christian respond to my question, I'll show you backing up facts. So take your own advise and STFU.

Again you are assuming all Atheists are always correct and all Christians are always wrong. What about the Jewish people, or the Islam, or the Buddhists...you keep bring up only Christians. There is a reason many Christians fail however, it's because they really don't understand the whole issues, just the concepts.

That is amazing. You've done all that and you are still confused? Wow. I've done much more research than that, and I've found an answer. Maybe you just need to do a little more looking. Or maybe you are missing one key element, logic.

How exactly do you know how much research I have even done? Is this via the same 'Karnac the Great' methods you used to come to your current 'answer'?

So why don't you explain to us just what you know mr. logical one.


Å

 

[Rilescat]

Originally posted by: Amorphus

Originally posted by: m2kewl

Originally posted by: cchen

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?

Why don't you go ahead and prove that The Bible is a work of fiction?

Why don't you go ahead and prove that he is not a work of fiction?

Uhm... No historian worth his weight in diarrhea will deny that Jesus existed, and the Bible is regarded as a reliable book of history, faith regardless.

By which hisorians?

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Tell me, what did Josephus say about your Jesus?

In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account:


About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

And you are also aware that Josephus did not include ANY mention of Jesus in his VERY detailed documentation. The Jesus references have been proven to be forged and injected into his works after the fact. The people that have studied his works in detail will pretty much agree on this unless they are in total denial. This goes for believers and non-believers. They have even just about narrowed down who committed the forgery. It's funny, why something so important as the crucifying of the "son of God" would not even be mentioned by him? Weird? I mean it was a Jewish rebellion he was documenting and he included just about everyone. That is like writing a documentary on WWII and not including the Nazis. Hmmm, maybe you just have to have faith.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Rilescat

Originally posted by: Amorphus

Originally posted by: m2kewl

Originally posted by: cchen

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?

Why don't you go ahead and prove that The Bible is a work of fiction?

Why don't you go ahead and prove that he is not a work of fiction?

Uhm... No historian worth his weight in diarrhea will deny that Jesus existed, and the Bible is regarded as a reliable book of history, faith regardless.

By which hisorians?

The Bible is regarded as a reliable book of history? Hmmm, so donkeys and snakes used to talk, dinosaurs didn't exist, the world is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth. Hmm, yeah, that's pretty accurate. Give me a fvcking break!

 

[Blain]

I haven't seen it yet...
Don't tell how it ends

 

[ShotgunSteven]

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.

Most history is usually written down after it happens, rather than before. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Tell me, what did Josephus say about your Jesus?

In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account:


About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

The Jesus references have been proven to be forged and inject into his works after the fact.

Proved by whom? Can you be more specific as to why you think the above reference is not authentic?