Saw I finally saw the Passion of the Christ

[Imran Siddiqui]

this the establishment of the church by Constantine

Ben, Constantine did not establish the Christian religion over Rome (The Edict of Milan in 313). What he did was end its lower standing compared to other cults and religions in the Empire. Constantine didn't convert until on his death bed (as the story goes).

Establishment of Christianity didn't happen until 394 with Emperor Theodosius I.

[DeathByTheSword]

true but it was said that he was practising it before that time (together with a lot of other cults (christianity in all it forms back then was still a cult)) and that in 312 during the a battle at some ridge (forgot the name) he had a vision from god...this is widely seen as a policital move on his hand because he had a lot of christian soldiers and crhistianity was growing in a political strong entity (although still very divided) it was a better save then sorry plan from his side during his life and also the baptisme on his deathbed can been seen in that light i think

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Paul says in Corinthians, in the earliest portion written, that the testimony of the Christians is true, and that if one doubts, one is to ask many among the 500 who saw the risen Christ.

And just how would it be easily possible, logistically, to track down these supposed 500 people, especially since Paul never names them?

I heard that a purple unicorn appeared on a street in Des Moines 30 years ago. Don't believe me? 500 people saw it at the time! Go ask them!

Many people believe that the Gospels were written by the people that they are attributed to, and that two of the 4 authors were disciples of Christ, and who were with him throughout his ministry here on Earth. I'm not sure why you claim there is evidence to the contrary that the Gospels were written by someone else.

The Gospels had no attributions of authors originally. No assertions of authors were made until Irenaeus made his claims c. 180 AD. Then they suddenly appeared--why should we think his beliefs were legitimate?

The notion that there should only be 4 canonical gospels was also first mentioned by Irenaeus. Care to guess what this fellow's reasoning was? It's actually pretty funny.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg03.htm

There's a lot of reasons there as to why the gospels are probably not authentic, and there certainly is no evidence they were written by the supposed apostles.

And neither do we have the actual words of Julius Caesar, rather do we have the accounts of his words. The Gospels are no different, other than the fact that they were written closer to the date, and by eyewitnesses and contemporaries to Christ.

Once again, you're completely making things up:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_caesar.htm

Voila, the extant writings of Julius Caesar. We also have numerous contemporary writings about Caesar from other people, which do not exist for Jesus. We also have his visage depicted on contemporary coinage, statues, busts, mosaics, etc.

Of course, what really makes your point here specious, is that nobody has ever claimed Caesar performed miracles or rose from the dead. For that, we can find something more analogous to Jesus in Osiris. Yeah, I'd put them in about the same camp.

[Imran Siddiqui]

because he had a lot of christian soldiers and crhistianity was growing in a political strong entity

I've heard the opposite, that a lot of soldiers weren't happy because Christianity became as seen of the religion of the elites, because a lot of aristocrats adopted it after the Edict of Milan (while it wasn't established, Constantine seemed to favor it).

[Dis]

I'm curious, should a non religious person see this movie? Does it have any religious mumbo jumbo (parting of the seas etc.), or is it in a more of an historical context?

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by Dissident

I'm curious, should a non religious person see this movie?

Yes. I'm not religious and I liked it. But film is one of my interests, so I might be biased...

Originally posted by Dissident

Does it have any religious mumbo jumbo (parting of the seas etc.), or is it in a more of an historical context?

None whatsoever (mumbo jumbo). I definitely think this movie can be appreciated by non-religious people with a taste for historical movies.

I'm not particularly fond of Mel Gibson and his films, but I rate him higher after he shot this movie. That he insisted on a non-commercial language, for example.

Carolus

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Just a real quick point. When did this thread become a bible study and lesson? By the title Last time I checked it was about a movie that was about the death of christ not requiring quotes from all of the bible. I thought the questions asked were if the movie was too violent antisemastic and if mel was wrong in producing it.

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski

I thought the questions asked were if the movie was too violent antisemastic and if mel was wrong in producing it.

Whether it comes to art, movies, books, music etc people tend to read in so much more than the painter, director, author, artist ever intended to or thought about herself. Part of the beauty of it all, no?

Carolus

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex


Whether it comes to art, movies, books, music etc people tend to read in so much more than the painter, director, author, artist ever intended to or thought about herself. Part of the beauty of it all, no?

Carolus

Quite true. However when I left this thread last folks were talking bout the movie I come back And I find my self in bible study class. Oh well maybe its up to me to decide to read this or skip the bible chat, which I did.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Just a real quick point. When did this thread become a bible study and lesson? By the title Last time I checked it was about a movie that was about the death of christ not requiring quotes from all of the bible. I thought the questions asked were if the movie was too violent antisemastic and if mel was wrong in producing it.

Maybe it was far more interesting than the movie?

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Maybe it was far more interesting than the movie?

To some maybe. Personnaly i didnt need a bible refresher. But as I said Its up to me to read it or not. I think my point was if the folks that wanted to chat about what they know of various passages of the bible, they should have started a new thread that related to just that.

[Carolus Rex]

I do not know all the turns and twists in the debate about whether the movie really is anti-semitic or not, so I have not much to add to that...

Let me give you another illustration... Hans Alfredsson and Tage Danielsson are two icons in swedish cultural/showbiz history... Tage is dead now (due to skin cancer, he died in 1985 IIRC), but Hans is still alive (in his seventies)...

Together they produced a lot of intelligent films and humourous shows, independently they wrote many books wherein they criticised swedish and world politics in a witty way... Both are/were great humanists, always defending the weak in society and putting the spotlight on those in power...

One movie is called "Äppelkriget" (The Apple War)... It's a movie whose main message is that we need to question how we live and protect our environment... Quite avant-garde as it was produced in the 1970's...

The message was however (as always) hidden in a symbolic pseudostory, giving rise to lots of different interpretations (as good stories should)...

Now, perhaps 7 or 10 years ago an academic (perhaps seeking fame and fortune? ) claimed that the movie had a racist motive... He asserted that Hans and Tage didn't want us to protect the environment, but rather that we needed to protect ourselves from immigration...

The researcher is of course entitled to his opinion... But anyone who has followed these guys over the years, read their books and many op-eds in newspapers (especially Tage was active in the daily debate, for example regarding the issue of nuclear power), knows that this is simply totally wrong...

At the time Tage was dead and when confronted with this claim, Hans was so angry he didn't know what to say except that "Tage must be turning in his grave"... He completely rejected the idea, but the academic expected nothing less ("Who admits to being racist?") etc...

In an open society with freedom of speech, fortunately there can be such a debate (although sometimes it's utterly ridiculous; and I'm not drawing any parallells here to the discussion about Mel Gibson's film being anti-semitic or not).

Carolus

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Just a real quick point. When did this thread become a bible study and lesson? By the title Last time I checked it was about a movie that was about the death of christ not requiring quotes from all of the bible. I thought the questions asked were if the movie was too violent antisemastic and if mel was wrong in producing it.

That tends to happen a lot around this place. We're talking real-world stuff and then somebody pops in and all of a sudden everybody is discussing theory and metaphysics and other assundry bull****.

I'd prefer to talk about the movie.

The religion discussion between JM and BK... do they have to do this in every thread that is slightly religion based?

[Verto]

Could a mod PLEASE correct the thread title before more sheep kill themselves?

[Berzerker]

John

Why even bother discussing this with Berzerker, people? He hasn't even bothered to see the film and is allowing other peoples words to form his attitudes w/o the necessary personal experience of actually watching the film that would make his arguments meaningful.

Pekka asked why people were offended, so I offered the explanations I've heard from them. Wasnt that obvious? I said the movie was unappealing to me because I don't care to see a movie depicting a 2 hour flaying (or however long it takes). Am I wrong about the violence? Then I dont need to see the movie to know I don't want to watch a guy get flayed for 2 hours.