The Passion rotten so far

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
However, we're discussing a specific film where that hasn't been done.

The fact it is using this "Book of Fairy Tales" as a source should be your first clue to start using the dispensation I gave you.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
If it makes you happier, it's some professor of theology.

Yes. That is slightly better than some dude.

[Ned]

For any who are not Christian, this film should be view as an example of a Roman crucifixion of noted provincial criminal.

According to Jewish history, the Romans crucified 250,000 Jews. My God the cruelty of the Empire!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, I still fail to see how suspending disbelief still changes the fact that you are watching 2 hours of some guy being horribly tortured and put to death. If you aren't a believer you simply can't the same reaction as a believer would to the same stuff, no matter how much you suspend your disbelief.

[MrBaggins]

There was a historical event, where Pilate adjudicated over a revolutionaries death. This is supposedly that account.

A book of fairy tales is one source of the account, but there are many other pieces of anecdotal evidence. The Romans were predigious record keepers about who ruled what province, when.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned
For any who are not Christian, this film should be view as an example of a Roman crucifixion of noted provincial criminal.

According to Jewish history, the Romans crucified 250,000 Jews. My God the cruelty of the Empire!

Correct.. but a specific named guy, if you read the synopsis.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
A book of fairy tales is one source of the account, but there are many other pieces of anecdotal evidence.

Show me.

[MrBaggins]

Record by Cornelius Tacitus...
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures a class hated for their abominations, people called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [AD 14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." Annals 15.44.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why should we not like it? We didn't have to suspend belief for it. All of it COULD have happened.

Actually scientific breakthroughs in things such as DNA testing, dating technology etc. are tending to confirm oral history or oral traditions about historical events. In some cases to a quite remarkable degree.

So the gospel accounts, though contradictory and embellished over time, probably have a lot of accuracy as to the events, including on specific incidents, what people said etc.

[Drake Tungsten]

While I know it's your standard maneuver to try and put your own spin on people's explanations for their beliefs/actions to suit your particular notions

That's funny; I always thought my standard maneuver was to avoid serious discussion whenever possible...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Record by Cornelius Tacitus...
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures a class hated for their abominations, people called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [AD 14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." Annals 15.44.

This information could have been derived from Christian material circulating in the early 2nd century and still doesn't jive with the fact that no document during the lifetime of Jesus mentions Jesus at all. So try again.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Tacitus stuff

Tacitus was writing decades after the supposed events, and he was basing his description on what the Christians claimed, not on any Roman records. The entire point of this passage was just to show how Nero was a bastard (Tacitus had a particularly nasty bee in his bonnet about the emperors, particularly Nero), not to provide any sort of corraboration for the events of the gospels.

There's also considerable historical speculation that the passage isn't Tacitus at all, but a later insertion by some forger. But that isn't gaining too much traction so far as an argument.

[MrBaggins]

Since Tacticus said that the Christians practiced "pernicious superstition" why would he trust what they said? Also he had access to the full Roman archives. Why would he use a second-hand source?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Also he had access to the full Roman archives. Why would he use a second-hand source?

... still doesn't jive with the fact that no document during the lifetime of Jesus mentions Jesus at all.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Since Tacticus said that the Christians practiced "pernicious superstition" why would he trust what they said? Also he had access to the full Roman archives. Why would he use a second-hand source?

Why would the Roman archives have records of the crucifixion, anyway? Executing criminals in a backwater province wasn't something that would normally be documented in Rome.