Saw I finally saw the Passion of the Christ

[DeathByTheSword]

ok sorry for any typos and maybe a little bit of a mess in the order of what i am telling here...i just wrote what came up in me from what i learned from my 'historial writings and changes upon these writings' college i have had


first of all ofcourse christians believe the film is basically historically correct because they believe the bible is basically historically correct thus this is a void argument.

let us look at the bible we have to day. I think i wasnt translated into english from latin until around the 17 or 18 century. in which times a lot of different kind of bibles were in ciculation. the orginal texts as you know where not in latin but in hebrew? which in 40 A.D wasnt the same as when it was translated in lets say 800 A.D (just a year nothing accurt here) in which time a lot of the stories were already mutilated because of mouth to mouth telling and changes in scripts and languages. then in i think 1205 the RC church had a very famous meeting where they made the bible we know today. they chose what texts would be in the bible and what not.

now it is also know that jesus never said himself that he was the son of god if you believe the black sea scrolls and the evangelion of thomas (one of the several stories that didnt make it into the RC bible) which i both recently read. this was done by the R.C church for justification of there power.

even the fragments found from 90-200 AD are like you say fragments and have been subject to change. they are not the first stories of the apostels. they were copied or written down after hearing about the stories. i will not say those texts were heavily modified but those texts do not speak of jesus as the son of god yet.

they are also written in a time of great political turmoil and it is hard to believe that execpt these writers all the other historians in the world were biased and wrote stories to promote there side in policital turmoil times.

then if you look at the timespan you talk about from 30 A.D to maximum of 200 A.D...there is no book in the world that hasnt changed in 100 years to fit the readers of that time...

is it then hard to believe that with all these changes there could also be people that have changed the bible for policital reasons?

so if we think it has been translated serveral times and there were many different copies of the 'bible' and if we take into account your own statement that the RC church was pretty corrupt at times and controlled the bible I think it is fair to say that the bible does not form a basically historically correct base about the story of jesus christ.

[DeathByTheSword]

oh one more thing...the bible we have today was it taking from the 90-200A.D piece and translated like 10 years ago...or do you mean it was translated back then and we have the end product of 1500 years of reprints and revisions right now today?

[Jon Miller]

umm, you know that our current Bible is based upon the ones we have from 1st and 2nd AD, before there was a Catholic church, right?

and before there was a catholic church, most had agreed that the gospels, like the one of St Thomas were not legit

in fact, our Bible today is just like the one from 1st and 2nd century AD

showing that your point about "no book in the world that hasnt changed in 100 years to fit the readers of that time" is false (despite all the other, secular, examples)

now from latin (and greek) to english is a whole different issue

because there are issues of interpretation (of what is meant), as well as there are some slight differences

but these are all common issues with books being translated to different languages, and being very old

and generally the best way to handle them is to read many translations...

and if you want to study the Gospels that people felt at the time were not canonical, well that is also aviailable, and I think could be valuable (as well as a historical study of what was going on at the time)

Jon Miller

[DeathByTheSword]

umm, you know that our current Bible is based upon the ones we have from 1st and 2nd AD, before there was a Catholic church, right?

and before there was a catholic church, most had agreed that the gospels, like the one of St Thomas were not legit

in fact, our Bible today is just like the one from 1st and 2nd century AD

the bible you are talking about had around 5 evangelions more then our current bible. you know this because the catholic church changed the bible in 1205 (i think 1205) the bible we have right now is decended of the early text but it is changed over 1500 years. part were added and removed. parts were misinterpeted and words were changed...how hard you want to believe the bible is historial accuret the RC church had over 1000 years to inprent there idea of what happened on to the world. this means that even if you find the orginal text today that due to biased in the minds of the people translating it (from a language that has been dead or changed over 2000 years) it will be faulty...

for example...everybody agrees that jesus was nailed to the cross...because that is what we believe over 2000 years. now if they have the orginal text and they cannot read a word properly so that they have: and jesus was .... to the cross...everybody will agree that the word has to be 'nailed'...

this is not an argument to say the bible we have now is wrong but it is just to illistrate a bigger problem with your believe that the oldst text we have are:
1. correct
2. correctly translated
3. not biased

besides this i have given several other arguments i believe that you have yet to refute in my previous post

[DeathByTheSword]

and let me set the record straight...i will not **** on anybodies religion. I think it is a worderfull think to have faith.

but i will **** on the idea that a book (any book) from over 500 years ago tells in anyway a correct dipiction of that time

[Jon Miller]

no

we have texts from the time periods I stated

and they are in agreement with what we have now

you didn't listen to what I said at all

a lot of protestants are extremely anticatholic, and would like to make a Bible without any catholic involvement at all

so there has been a lot of looking at ancient manuscripts

while it is correct that there are some differences about which books are canonical, most agree with the ones that were selected

basically I have looked all this up many many times, for discussions on apolyton and my own interest

and I have spent days reading stuff several times

and don't feel like doing it right now

we have texts (as in archeological) from 1st century AD, not translations of texts from 1st century AD (which is what our current Bible is)

now it is true that the 1st century stuff is fragments, but we have full Bibles from a little bit later (and the fragments agree with them)

also, if you are interested in what wasn't included, a lot of other people are also, and they are available from bookstores and on the net

basically I have spent a lot of time looking this stuff up in the past, and don't feel like doing so now

and we can read greek and latin correctly..

Jon Miler

[Jon Miller]

basically it seems to me that a lot of people who doubt the Bible

don't have a clue what they are talking about

sure, there is room for doubt

but a lot of what people claim, just isn't true

such as the claim that we don't have any manuscripts from near the time frame of the events described

or that the religious works that comprise the Bible changed massively with time (we know that the OT we have today is like what they had back in 1st century BC or whatever, from the Dead Sea Scrolls)

basically these books haven't changed much for thousands of years

and while people can claim that they changed a ton in the first ~100 years (in the NTs case), I think that the claim doesn't have any evidence

we also have many other works that are as old, but most people don't go arround claiming that they are modified so as to be not at all trustworthy...

JM

[Kidlicious]

Impressive DBTS



JM

I don't think you understand that even looking at ancient manuscripts is only so effective. The meaning of those manuscripts is lost in time.

[DeathByTheSword]

while it is correct that there are some differences about which books are canonical, most agree with the ones that were selected

and why is that...why are those 'correct' and other not?

and we can read greek and latin correctly..

true but are the 'fragments' in greek or latin?

also, if you are interested in what wasn't included, a lot of other people are also, and they are available from bookstores and on the net

i had to read the st thomas book with explanation with it for my college even if it isnt 'correct' and 'part of the story of jesus' acording to a 'lot of people' the book shows how, why and when translations and totally changes in texts happen...proving my point that even the earliest texts can not be trusted...especially because of the policital and social time it happened.


the debate about the bible is so much more then only finding and early version and saying well if we translate this we have the correct story...even if you find the first version you have to put it a) in to context of the time b) find out what is symbolic and what is not c) find out what the motivation of the writer/writers is/are

[Jon Miller]

you can look at the history of the time, and the discussions about the different 'heresies' and come to your own conclusions

in fact, I support you in doing that, it would be cool to make a thread on the subjext (I am sure others have some interest)

I personally haven't made the time to study too much, but I have looked some and can understand why several of the books are not excepted as canonical by most of Christianity

basically to judge whether something is correct, you look at discussions made by others, you look at how it fits in with the whole, you pray about, etc

now a number of the books which aren't included, are very very different then the ones that are

and difinitely don't agree theologically with Paul's letters and the like and also seem to be, historically, from nonchristian movements of the time

so it makes sense to come to the conclusion, that they aren't canonical (we are pretty sure about some of Pauls letters)

but this discussion, is what makes some that I know, claim that they disagree with Paul, and are in agreement with the 'noncanonical' gospels and the like

the point though, is that from a Christian view, it is easy to see why these other gospels are not canonical (Christianity is very much influenced by Paul, and he wrote a good chunk of the NT) (and the entire NT is our Bible (with the OT), not just the gospels)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Impressive DBTS



JM

I don't think you understand that even looking at ancient manuscripts is only so effective. The meaning of those manuscripts is lost in time.

how is he impressive?

he has looked up nothing

I have done so before, several times, and in threads similiar to this...

while I admit to not doing so this time, I don't see how you can claim that words without any basis in fact is impressive

and are you saying that we have lost the meaning of Plato and Aristotle?

I think that you don't understand what people understand and know.. (Also latin has been a dead language for a long long time..)

Jon Miller

[DeathByTheSword]

the point though, is that from a Christian view, it is easy to see why these other gospels are not canonical (Christianity is very much influenced by Paul, and he wrote a good chunk of the NT) (and the entire NT is our Bible (with the OT), not just the gospels)

complete agree...but that is were the problem lays like a said before...our views about what happened can never be objective anymore by 200 years of 'proganda' (for lack of a nicer term)

[DeathByTheSword]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


how is he impressive?

he has looked up nothing

I have done so before, several times, and in threads similiar to this...

while I admit to not doing so this time, I don't see how you can claim that words without any basis in fact is impressive

and are you saying that we have lost the meaning of Plato and Aristotle?

I think that you don't understand what people understand and know.. (Also latin has been a dead language for a long long time..)

Jon Miller

i was going to let this discussion die out...but DONT try to presume what i have and have looked up...DONT presume that i do not know what christianity is... DONT presume that you know anything more about this subject and DONT presume you know what i know about translations errors, ancient texts, historial rape and misinterpetion of events in history in general...

that is not only very arrogent but also is disrepectfull towards me

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
he probably said already but i am to backward lazy today to look if it is true...but pekka says about the hitting and the portraining jews badly 'isnt this as it happens so why not show the truth'.

you says is on assumption that what the bible says is true...and that it is a correct telling of what happened back then...but as we all most of the stories in the bible were written 10 years after jesus died...and rewritten for policital reasons thousands of times...having said that we do not know what happened back then or even if it happened...but if you see the POTC as a story instead of a religious historial accuret event then there is nothing wrong with it...but i think it is very arrogent to make a movie that depicts the suffering of jesus and in my eyes also is slanderous for jews and call it historial correct.

what mel gibson did is take the stories about jesus suffering that he heard in his childhood...put some extra blood in it to get HIS point across and sold it as and correct dipiction of what happened...he sold it more as a reinactment then a movie...and that is what i believe is wrong about this movie

this is what you claimed

and I have argued that it is false (and I have seen facts that it is false, but don't feel like doing your googling for you, and so have just referenced them)

and now you argue something completely different, that there could be symbolism, or interpretation, or something

well that could be true about everything...

but your point that the Bible has been hacked to peices for 2k years is obviously false

and your statement that the death of Christ is something that only Mel (or a small group) that beleives similiarly is false

Christians think that is what happened, and we think that based upon our holy book, and we can trace it back (Archeologically, as well as historically) to a few decades after the events described within it

now it could be all false, written by His disciples or Paul, in order to start a new religion

but that is not what Christians believe

it is not just some story that no one believes is true, it is true, and important, for millions (over a billion?) Christians worldwide...

Jon Miller

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
how is he impressive?

he has looked up nothing

I have done so before, several times, and in threads similiar to this...

while I admit to not doing so this time, I don't see how you can claim that words without any basis in fact is impressive

Don't take it wrong. You aren't doing badly. I just agree with him and he's being articulate

and are you saying that we have lost the meaning of Plato and Aristotle?

Yeah, some of it anyway. We can't be sure what part.

I think that you don't understand what people understand and know.. (Also latin has been a dead language for a long long time..)

No one knows for sure what someone was thinking thousands of years ago.