The Passion may not be COMPLETELY true to history...

[ThePresence]

Read all 4 pages before commenting.

Newsweek

Interesting, to say the least.

 

[cpals]

Cliff Notes?

 

[conjur]

Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing in particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance

HERETICS!! BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!

 

[slycat]

i am so glad Gibson is not a scientologist.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: cpals
Cliff Notes?

That's EXACTLY what I was trying to avoid.

 

[Nyical]

The Pope gave the thumbs up so it must be true correct??

He is like the voice of God for us mortal peons.

 

[cpals]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: cpals
Cliff Notes?

That's EXACTLY what I was trying to avoid.

Glad I could help.

 

[conjur]

I think the Cliffs Notes can be summed with this:

The historical problem of dealing with the various players in the Passion narratives is complicated by the exact meaning of the Greek words usually translated "the Jews." The phrase does not include the entire Jewish population of Jesus' day?to the writers, Jesus and his followers were certainly not included?and seems to refer mostly to the Temple elite

 

[LAUST]

We can't even get history written 200 years ago correctly, what makes you think any of this even happened 2000 years ago

 

[slycat]

Originally posted by: cpals
Cliff Notes?

Amid the clash over Gibson's film and the debates about the nature of God, wheth-er you believe Jesus to be the savior of mankind or to have been an interesting first-century figure who left behind an inspiring moral philosophy, perhaps we can at least agree on this image of Jesus of Nazareth: confronted by violence, he chose peace; by hate, love; by sin, forgiveness?a powerful example for us all, whoever our gods may be.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: conjur
I think the Cliffs Notes can be summed with this:

The historical problem of dealing with the various players in the Passion narratives is complicated by the exact meaning of the Greek words usually translated "the Jews." The phrase does not include the entire Jewish population of Jesus' day?to the writers, Jesus and his followers were certainly not included?and seems to refer mostly to the Temple elite

No, they brought up many inconsistancies and probabilities, not just that. That was one point among many.

 

[Warthog912]

Originally posted by: LAUST
We can't even get history written 200 years ago correctly, what makes you think any of this even happened 2000 years ago

The question is not what makes you think any of this happened?. Cause I'm sure the sun rose every day .

The question is actually how much of it actually happened.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: slycat

Originally posted by: cpals
Cliff Notes?

Amid the clash over Gibson's film and the debates about the nature of God, wheth-er you believe Jesus to be the savior of mankind or to have been an interesting first-century figure who left behind an inspiring moral philosophy, perhaps we can at least agree on this image of Jesus of Nazareth: confronted by violence, he chose peace; by hate, love; by sin, forgiveness?a powerful example for us all, whoever our gods may be.

I don't think there is anyone who would dispute that those are noble attributes.

 

[dquan97]

Pretty funny how the entire argument by the author is how Gibson used creative liberties to fill in gaps in the Gospels.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Imagine that, a movie not completely true to history? Civilization as we know it has come to an end!

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Heh. You can tell that the article's author isn't a believer at all. The reason that the Jewish leaders wanted Christ dead was that they were getting power and riches from all the requirements of Jewish law -something that their carnal minds didn't want to lose. Bathing before entering the temple? You had to pay for it. Slaughtering a ram/goat for your sins every Saturday/Sunday (can't remember which)? If you didn't have your own, you had to PAY for one. If you DID have your own, you had to PAY a priest to do it. Etc. The Romans shouldn't have even crucified him anyway. He didn't commit treason or some major crime in Roman law, but the Jewish leaders and the Roman leaders had agreements. Besides... an angry mob the size of the entire Jewish race in the city? Do you honestly think Pilate wanted that? Hell no! That pansy pacified the crowd by using a punishment that was reserved for the worst crimes against the Roman empire in order to avoid unrest. The trial at which Christ was finally confronted by Caiaphas was at NIGHT, which was strictly forbidden in Jewish law. The "trial" held at Pilate's house not long after the Jewish "trial" by Caiaphas, still at night --which is also against Roman law. That's why the only people there were the ones that new he was going to be arrested and, therefore, the ones conspiring against him.

Anyone who actually reads Matthew - John in the Bible can tell you that the people responsible for actually putting Christ to death are the Romans; the people responsible for condemning Christ to death are the Jewish leaders.

That author is so bent on "anti-semitism". It seems that the author is trying to show that the gospels were anti-semetic and hated all the Jews.

Thew Jewish leaders, along with the Roman leaders, did some stupid stuff. That's how it was. Get over it.

 

[StageLeft]

I shan't be reading 4 pages, but I will say that as with any event in history nobody can with certainty say what happened or how it happend. All historical sources always have holes and mild to severe contradictions throughout. So, essentially I'm saying that different people come to different conclusions and it's hard to say who's really right.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I shan't be reading 4 pages, but I will say that as with any event in history nobody can with certainty say what happened or how it happend. All historical sources always have holes and mild to severe contradictions throughout. So, essentially I'm saying that different people come to different conclusions and it's hard to say who's really right.

But there are some things we can say about Jesus with a fairly high level of certainty, isn't there?

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I shan't be reading 4 pages, but I will say that as with any event in history nobody can with certainty say what happened or how it happend. All historical sources always have holes and mild to severe contradictions throughout. So, essentially I'm saying that different people come to different conclusions and it's hard to say who's really right.

But there are some things we can say about Jesus with a fairly high level of certainty, isn't there?

You can't even say he existed with a high level of certainty.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I shan't be reading 4 pages, but I will say that as with any event in history nobody can with certainty say what happened or how it happend. All historical sources always have holes and mild to severe contradictions throughout. So, essentially I'm saying that different people come to different conclusions and it's hard to say who's really right.

But there are some things we can say about Jesus with a fairly high level of certainty, isn't there?

You can't even say he existed with a high level of certainty.

Oh, I think there's little doubt that he existed. Most questions come down to how much of what is claimed about him is true. Jesus all but certainly was a real person.

 

[kage69]

You can't even say he existed with a high level of certainty.

I'm sure Pat will be a long shortly to denounce you as a bigot.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I shan't be reading 4 pages, but I will say that as with any event in history nobody can with certainty say what happened or how it happend. All historical sources always have holes and mild to severe contradictions throughout. So, essentially I'm saying that different people come to different conclusions and it's hard to say who's really right.

But there are some things we can say about Jesus with a fairly high level of certainty, isn't there?

You can't even say he existed with a high level of certainty.

Oh, I think there's little doubt that he existed. Most questions come down to how much of what is claimed about him is true. Jesus all but certainly was a real person.

I have no doubt in my mind that he existed but, based upon the historical record, there's really almost nothing to back that up. I just point it out because it makes it difficult to really state much at all about Jesus outside of the teachings in the Bible. And using the Bible as reference, what may be true and literal or not is a matter of faith.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I shan't be reading 4 pages, but I will say that as with any event in history nobody can with certainty say what happened or how it happend. All historical sources always have holes and mild to severe contradictions throughout. So, essentially I'm saying that different people come to different conclusions and it's hard to say who's really right.

But there are some things we can say about Jesus with a fairly high level of certainty, isn't there?

You can't even say he existed with a high level of certainty.

Oh, I think there's little doubt that he existed. Most questions come down to how much of what is claimed about him is true. Jesus all but certainly was a real person.

I have no doubt in my mind that he existed but, based upon the historical record, there's really almost nothing to back that up. I just point it out because it makes it difficult to really state much at all about Jesus outside of the teachings in the Bible. And using the Bible as reference, what may be true and literal or not is a matter of faith.

Well, Josephus mentions him, and that was not in a religious context.
Link

 

[blakeatwork]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: slycat

Originally posted by: cpals
Cliff Notes?

Amid the clash over Gibson's film and the debates about the nature of God, wheth-er you believe Jesus to be the savior of mankind or to have been an interesting first-century figure who left behind an inspiring moral philosophy, perhaps we can at least agree on this image of Jesus of Nazareth: confronted by violence, he chose peace; by hate, love; by sin, forgiveness?a powerful example for us all, whoever our gods may be.

I don't think there is anyone who would dispute that those are noble attributes.

you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd say that the desire for peace is a vice, or that love and forgiveness are for "wussy crybabies who cant stick up for themselves" (unless your name is Shurb of course.. <I kid I kid>

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I shan't be reading 4 pages, but I will say that as with any event in history nobody can with certainty say what happened or how it happend. All historical sources always have holes and mild to severe contradictions throughout. So, essentially I'm saying that different people come to different conclusions and it's hard to say who's really right.

But there are some things we can say about Jesus with a fairly high level of certainty, isn't there?

You can't even say he existed with a high level of certainty.

Oh, I think there's little doubt that he existed. Most questions come down to how much of what is claimed about him is true. Jesus all but certainly was a real person.

I have no doubt in my mind that he existed but, based upon the historical record, there's really almost nothing to back that up. I just point it out because it makes it difficult to really state much at all about Jesus outside of the teachings in the Bible. And using the Bible as reference, what may be true and literal or not is a matter of faith.

There may be no absolute, nobody-can-deny-this proof, but there is a hell of a lot of persuasive cirumstantial evidence. I find it very hard to believe that the man was a figment of our collective imagination.

OTOH, I also belive that most of the tales about him are an amalgomation of a number of different people.