TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Important Information
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

9 more days until its released, can't wait

if anyone is intrested there is a special about the movie on abc at 10 pm

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic u know that the bible was written before the invention of churches..so how did they invent jesus as u claim..did they find this book n said cool we will use that and the guy mentioned in it as our symbol..i sont think so..also the romans were the leaders of the world of that time and thier gods were statues n stuff..now they r the most belivers in christianity n jesus..dont u think for that to happen they must have seen something or heard something? i also doubt any of the jews scholars will doubt the existance of jesus they may not agree with him but they know he existed..u have to look at who were around at that time...u got the romans(mostly christians now) and the jews(not sure about them but i dont think they doubt his existance)..looks good to me..also if u dont believe a book written by 60 writers as u say(with no profit in mind at the time) why would u believe books written by one author now(with much to gain from sales)..hypocracy??

What is your reference that churches existed before hand. Link or book title please.

The jews don't usually doubt the existance of Jesus, they just don't believe that he was the Savior.

Mabye not profit, but popularity could be a viable cause. I would probably believe a book written by one writer then by 60, especially when it comes to the bible and the amount of contradictions in it. I seem to not be able to grasp the point that 60 people wrote for God, or how they revised the word of God.

And you didn't exactly refut many of arctic's comments. Why don't you go through his post and pick out certain phrases, refute them, give sources, and make a point. Let's not pull a Nessa

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic u know that the bible was written before the invention of churches..so how did they invent jesus as u claim..did they find this book n said cool we will use that and the guy mentioned in it as our symbol..i sont think so..also the romans were the leaders of the world of that time and thier gods were statues n stuff..now they r the most belivers in christianity n jesus..dont u think for that to happen they must have seen something or heard something? i also doubt any of the jews scholars will doubt the existance of jesus they may not agree with him but they know he existed..u have to look at who were around at that time...u got the romans(mostly christians now) and the jews(not sure about them but i dont think they doubt his existance)..looks good to me..also if u dont believe a book written by 60 writers as u say(with no profit in mind at the time) why would u believe books written by one author now(with much to gain from sales)..hypocracy??

It was still written by Christians with a vested interest and/or bias. Of course Christians who have based their entire religion off the teachings of Jesus aren't going to deny his existence. It's a sure fire way to kill off Christianity in it's infancy.

I don't trust the bible as an objective reference. Simply head to www.infidels.org or www.skepticsannotatedbible.com to see how many contradictions, absurdities, ethically questionable actions and so forth that it contains. Hell, do we really need to go over how the earth is flat, the world is 6000 years old, Earth is the centre of the Universe, the Sun orbits around the earth, or how Noah saved every animal species on earth in one single ship? To be perfectly honest, I don't think the bible can be trusted.

I'm not asserting that Jesus definably, 100% did not exist. I'm just saying that there's disturbingly little historical/objective evidence of his existence. If this was anyone else, there would be widespread doubts about their existence. Quite frankly I think nobody has bothered to ask this question until relatively recently due to the sheer size & proliferation of Christianity.

As for the conversion of the Romans, no, I don't. The same argument could be used for the massive growth of Islam, or the spread of Hinduism. Did people who converted to Islam in it's infancy also see something supernatural or extraordinary? Looks like our beloved deity might have a pretty severe case of double personality disorder, eh? Or maybe there are two gods up in the sky. Maybe the Christian deity is at war with Allah. You mention the Jewish scholars. I don't claim to have a lot of knowledge about Judaism, as by numbers it isn't a particularly significant religion, there are at least five or six that are bigger than it, and so far I've tried to examine them. That being said, does the Torah not contain absurdities and errors as well? Is not Judaism founded on the notion of a deity that they can't prove exists? They're illogical about that, so why not be illogical about this as well? (Yes, I realize accusations of hypocrisy are sometimes considered a form of fallacious argument, but I felt I had to put that in, for the sake of my jar of Zionist mustard ) I don't really trust another religion to be objective, especially when denying Jesus' existence would also damage relations with the major Christian churches. Since Judaism and Christianity are closely linked, that's probably not something they'd be overly keen to do.
Either way, I don't think it matters what the Jews think, what matters is the evidence.

As for the authors point, wouldn't a book with multiple authors over a fairly long period of time be fairly likely to be rather disjointed & inaccurate (Which I believe it is)? Once again, I don't care what the bible says, as as far as I know, it was written after the time when Christ supposedly existed, and for Christianity to take off, they simply had to include Jesus. Imagine Christianity without Jesus.
"God sent his son to die for us, but we don't know when it happened, how it happened, and have sadly lost all of his teachings. But hey, it happened!"

Once again, what matters here is first person historical records from that time. As I haven't come across one that credibly alludes to Jesus Christ existing at the time, I think that doubting his existence is justified. That being said, I intend to investigate the issue further, and if I do come across evidence for his existence, then i will change my position on the issue.

Well, I don't see how you can consider this movie anti-semitic without considering the whole new testament anti-semitic, as the movie is almost a literal interpretation of it.

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic u know that the bible was written before the invention of churches..

The current bible was written at the Council of Nicaea, at about 400AD.

quote:

so how did they invent jesus as u claim..did they find this book n said cool we will use that and the guy mentioned in it as our symbol..i sont think so..

The story about Jesus was most likely a mix of verbally transfered legends about Jewish savior and the egyptian cult of Osiris beliefs.

quote:

also the romans were the leaders of the world of that time and thier gods were statues n stuff..

Just because they had statues representing gods doesn't mean their statues were their gods. It's like saying your god is a statue on a cross, because every church has a such a statue of Jesus.

quote:

now they r the most belivers in christianity n jesus..dont u think for that to happen they must have seen something or heard something?

Yes, they did hear something. Promises of a happy afterlife for the poor and opressed. Considering that most roman citizens were poor and opressed, it is not surprising to see which religion they chose.

quote:

i also doubt any of the jews scholars will doubt the existance of jesus they may not agree with him but they know he existed..u have to look at who were around at that time...u got the romans(mostly christians now) and the jews(not sure about them but i dont think they doubt his existance)..looks good to me..

Well, there are no historical records except the highly doubtful bible which confirm Jesus's existance. Jesus's name began to be mentioned in historical records only after about 100AD.

quote:

also if u dont believe a book written by 60 writers as u say(with no profit in mind at the time) why would u believe books written by one author now(with much to gain from sales)..hypocracy??

Yes, no profits, only power. It is hardly believable since it is often contradicting itself.

Ran across this site the other day. Has some great in depth info. on the approximate dates of early Christian writings in the NT. You'll notice that the first Gospel ever written that the Council of Nicaea accepted into the NT was approx. 65-80 yrs. AFTER the possible death of Christ (Mark). One has to wonder, how accurate is a historical text when writing 65-80 yrs. after a given event?:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, I don't see how you can consider this movie anti-semitic without considering the whole new testament anti-semitic, as the movie is almost a literal interpretation of it. The current bible was written at the Council of Nicaea, at about 400AD. The story about Jesus was most likely a mix of verbally transfered legends about Jewish savior and the egyptian cult of Osiris beliefs. Just because they had statues representing gods doesn't mean their statues were their gods. It's like saying your god is a statue on a cross, because every church has a such a statue of Jesus. Yes, they did hear something. Promises of a happy afterlife for the poor and opressed. Considering that most roman citizens were poor and opressed, it is not surprising to see which religion they chose. Well, there are no historical records except the highly doubtful bible which confirm Jesus's existance. Jesus's name began to be mentioned in historical records only after about 100AD. Yes, no profits, only power. It is hardly believable since it is often contradicting itself.

sorry dude but ur post makes absolutly no sense..u think the most powerful empire converted to christianity..just because a promis of a happy life..what religion doesnt promise that..and why would they care they were the most powerfil at the time..and it doesnt matter what there gods were..i think one of em was a representation of the sun or something..but it doesnt matter..they converted to christianity..they had to believe or witness something..as for islam well mohamed was a powerful warrior and his power and conquests were admired by many thats why alot believe in him..i suggest u read abot islam arctic before u talk..i think the bible may have been altered through time but it still has a correct record i think..the 4 aposcles who wrote it did not gain power or anything like that ...they spent their life preaching and got tortured by non believers...what power did they gain here? look i know u r gonna post again and say ooooooh but the bible isnt accurate..well it may be full of contradictaries but i dont think there is a single contradiction in the 4 testaments about jesus's crusifiction...i think u guys r just arguing but with no valid point except the bible is full of contradiction..put it in sig will ya...i am out u can blab more about the bible..

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic look i know u r gonna post again and say ooooooh but the bible isnt accurate..well it may be full of contradictaries but i dont think there is a single contradiction in the 4 testaments about jesus's crusifiction...i think u guys r just arguing but with no valid point except the bible is full of contradiction..put it in sig will ya...i am out u can blab more about the bible..

Wow, so you post this without wanting to hear a rebuttal argument? That's aweful neighborly of ya. Kinda defeats the purpose of a "debate", doesn't it? Are you just gonna post your ideas without willing to hear possible arguments against your opinions? Could I, by chance, direct you to the Chill Out Room?

Well, I'll play along for now. If someone could show you a contradiction or two, would you be willing to listen?

Anyone want to take the first crack?

its not that..if u read my post..i say that i agree that there are contradictions in the bible and even though i agree..people..still come back n post about it..i will be a liar if i said the bible is contradiction free,,but it gets kinda tired..after reading it a million times...it has become like where do u download ur music threads..get my point...there r some things i dont agree with the church with not only the bible..i think some churches use the name of jesus to drag money out of the people..but if u go to a monestary to see the monks and nones praying living the simple life not asking much of anyone..or if u go to the churches in the poorer country whi pray just out of faith...u will see what christianity is about.

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic its not that..if u read my post..i say that i agree that there are contradictions in the bible and even though i agree..people..still come back n post about it..i will be a liar if i said the bible is contradiction free,,but it gets kinda tired..after reading it a million times...it has become like where do u download ur music threads..get my point...there r some things i dont agree with the church with..i think some churches use the name of jesus to drag money out of the people..but if u go to a monestary to see the monks and nones praying living the simple life not asking much of anyone..or if u go to the churches in the poorer country whi pray just out of faith...u will see what christianity is about.

Well you will not receive an argument from me on this statement.

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic sorry dude but ur post makes absolutly no sense..u think the most powerful empire converted to christianity..just because a promis of a happy life..

It's not the people in charge who desired a change, it was the opressed masses who wanted it. In case you didn't know, citizens of Roman empire did not have any civil rights, and their status was basically that of people living in occupied territories, not far from slavery in other words. Those people didn't regard the Roman empire as their home country, the only people who did so were the citizens of the city of Rome.

quote:

what religion doesnt promise that..

Well, talking about romans, their religion comes to mind.

quote:

and why would they care they were the most powerfil at the time..

Yes, but their internal stability wasn't very high, as people had no patriotic feelings for the empire. No surprise, since they weren't considered members of it.

quote:

and it doesnt matter what there gods were..

Actually it does, since their earlier gods could hardly be considered as kind and benevolent. If their gods were similar to the christian god, christianity would have never caught on.

quote:

i think one of em was a representation of the sun or something..

Nope. But Osiris was the representation of the sun. And Jesus surprisingly inherited most of Osiris's divine abilities.

quote:

but it doesnt matter..they converted to christianity..they had to believe or witness something..

Well, you can pretty much convince uneducated masses to believe anything if you're a good enough leader.

quote:

as for islam well mohamed was a powerful warrior and his power and conquests were admired by many thats why alot believe in him..

Well, he didn't start out as a powerful warrior. Similar to early christians, he just told the masses what they wanted to hear.

quote:

i think the bible may have been altered through time but it still has a correct record i think..

Well, not really. Some parts of it seem to be correct, but many parts of it are simply made up or unprovable.

quote:

the 4 aposcles who wrote it did not gain power or anything like that ...they spent their life preaching and got tortured by non believers...what power did they gain here?

Well, again the only source to confirm that is the bible. Although I wasn't directly aluding to them when I mentioned that. But you must ask yourself, would they do the same thing if they knew they were going to be tortured and killed?

quote:

look i know u r gonna post again and say ooooooh but the bible isnt accurate..well it may be full of contradictaries but i dont think there is a single contradiction in the 4 testaments about jesus's crusifiction...

Here's 2 for starters:

Genealogy of Jesus

quote:

Matthew. 1:6-16 David Solomon Robomoam Abia Asa Josaphat Joram Ozias Joatham Achaz Ezekias Manasses Amon Josias Jecohnias Salathiel Zorobabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Sadoc Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph Jesus Luke 3:21-31 David Nathan Mattatha Menan Melea Eliakim Jonan Joseph Juda Simeon Levi Matthat Jorim Eliezer Jose Er Elmodam Cosam Addi Melchi Neri Salathiel Zorobabel Rhesa Joanna Juda Joseph Semei Mattathias Maath Nagge Esli Naum Amos Mattathias Joseph Janna Melchi Levi Matthat Heli Joseph Jesus

So, they seem to disagree a bit here. They're already not certain who the grandfather was, let alone the other ancestors. Also, what was first, the imprisonment of John or the calling of Peter?

quote:

Mark 1:14-17 "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee .... Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." John 1:40-42, 3:22-24 " One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. ... After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison."

quote:

i think u guys r just arguing but with no valid point except the bible is full of contradiction..put it in sig will ya...

Unlike you who bases your conclusions on rock-solid evidence? Besides, I never mentioned biblical contradictions in this debate until now, when you asked for them. I must notice here that your knowledge of history is very lacking and I have so far only corrected false assumptions you made. I truly don't understand how your line of reasoning works since you haven't responded to a single statement I have made, but have responded to a whole array of statements I haven't made.

quote:

i am out u can blab more about the bible..

Wow, after such insightful posts it really makes my heart shatter to see you go.

haha drug-tito ur last statement cracked me up...the thing is there have been a bunch of these threads lately..and people seem to repeat the stuff..if u had hard evidence or if i did..we wouldnt be having this conversation...in all the debates about the topic..i didnt even read a single post that makes me go hmmmm..i wonder...and i read the same posts said by others already so it gets kinda old u know what i mean..fact of the matter is there is not a single thing i can say that convince u..even if i come with hard evidence like a pic of me n jesus u will say thats an imposter..

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic haha drug-tito ur last statement cracked me up...the thing is there have been a bunch of these threads lately..and people seem to repeat the stuff..if u had hard evidence or if i did..we wouldnt be having this conversation...in all the debates about the topic..i didnt even read a single post that makes me go hmmmm..i wonder...and i read the same posts said by others already so it gets kinda old u know what i mean..fact of the matter is there is not a single thing i can say that convince u..even if i come with hard evidence like a pic of me n jesus u will say thats an imposter..

Man, I'd love to have a pic with Jesus! You lucky ducky!

I see nothing wrong with Mel Gibson's movie. The Jewish Priests and those that believed Jesus was a liar, demanded his crucifixion from Pilate. Pilate was reluctant and found Jesus not guilty of anything. This is what is says in the Bible. It doesn't matter how ruthless or cruel Pilate was, he still told the crowd "I don't see this man guilty of anything". If Mel Gibson distorts this to please Jews, THEN I will see something wrong with this movie.

Understanding the true meaning of the crucifixion tells you that everyone was responsible for His death. Not merely Jews or Romans, but everyone. He knew He was sent to die. He died for a reason. That reason is SIN. And everyone sinned.

Since when was Jesus perceived as a threat to Roman rule? I never actually read that he was a threat to the Empire in the Bible. Is it an assumption? Or recorded somewhere else? But it's not in the Bible. Again, Pilate didn't find him guilty of anything.

If this movie is percieved as anti-semitic, then the Bible is anti-semitic too.

It's nice to see the Bible being accused of being anti-semitic. That makes both Bible and Qur'an.

Its pathetic how the Jews complain about this film being "anti-semitic"...while its okay for them to make ancient Egyptians look like evil, whip-happy slave oppressors.

I guess everything non-jew is "anti-semitic"....its getting really lame.

Right, debating with all you educated lot is very weird for me, coz this is one of the few posts that i make in this forum.

quote:

Well, he didn't start out as a powerful warrior. Similar to early christians, he just told the masses what they wanted to hear.

From what i can remember, Jesus was not a violent man at all. When he came, everyone wanted him to be violent, go out and get an army, and save everyone. THis means then he couldnt have shown them what they wanted to hear?

Also, allot of people have been talking about evidence? I know you do not regard the Bible is evidence, but then what exactly could be used? Could Jesus had put down something in the ground for Archiologists to descover in the 21st century to prove to everyone?

Religion is faith. God gave everyone free will to choose how they live their life. Whether you believe in him is your choice But God doesn't need to say, look, they dont believe, lets MAKE them believe.

Science is all about evidence, Catholicisim, is about faith, as all religions ( i think lol). It is very hard to use one against the other.

Also, someone said Signs was shit?? what u on about, i loved that movie lol. I heard that this will be not in english (gibsons latest film) with subtitles? this true? I will go see it, whens it released?

did real Jew actors fill the roles of Jews in the movie?

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Its pathetic how the Jews complain about this film being "anti-semitic"...while its okay for them to make ancient Egyptians look like evil, whip-happy slave oppressors. I guess everything non-jew is "anti-semitic"....its getting really lame.

what does ancient egyptians have to do in the movie? are they portrayed in it?

I hope the film answers my question about Jesus and the last supper... was is it kosher!?!

Mel Gibson was interviewed by Diane Soyer on TV on the Passion of Christ. I saw it yesterday on TV.

I wanna see the movie, it looks quite disturbing and bloody. As for the Christian context, i dont give a shit, im not religious.

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian everyone was responsible for His death. Not merely Jews or Romans, but everyone. He knew He was sent to die. He died for a reason. That reason is SIN. And everyone sinned.

Cool, so I am responsible for the death of a raving lunatic who probably never even existed? I feel so privileged!

Tranceaholic, this isn't about the Bible. The bible was not written during Jesus' lifetime, and even if it had been, it contains to much bullshit that it's impossible to take it seriously. I'm yet to see you address a single point from my post, which primarily dealt with reputable first hand sources from the supposed time of Jesus. If Jesus did what he is claimed to have done in the bible, then he would have been included in the historical records of the day. I have yet to see any evidence of that. Unless you are willing to address my points, then quite frankly I don't see the point of discussing this.

Yeah the movie does look bloody. Is it rated R? It doesn't look like a movie for kids.

quote:

Originally posted by DR86 yeah...he is old... but he'd know if it's accurate considering he is God's messanger to Earth. The idea is that he, along with all the high cardinals have studied theology for a VERY long time, and all know the correct history

As a former Catholic, I'm going to say screw them all for covering up those thousands of cases of sexual abuse of children.


They need regime change in the Catholic Church, and the people of their church deserve nothing less.

There are plenty of more open-minded Christian and other faith denominations that aren't governed by greedy, power-hungry, authoritarians for people to join.

They should sell their gold plated chairs and help the poor with the money.

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian Since when was Jesus perceived as a threat to Roman rule? I never actually read that he was a threat to the Empire in the Bible. Is it an assumption? Or recorded somewhere else? But it's not in the Bible. Again, Pilate didn't find him guilty of anything.

Well, Jesus himslef in his early days wasn't percieved as much of a threat to the romans as well as he was to the jewish rulers. Rome was pretty much filled with various cults, and although it had an official religion, the state authorities did not interfere much with local cults unless they opposed the roman rule. Later on, as the movement grew, it became obvious that its foundations are generally opposed to the established system of government. Hence the slaughtering of christians in arenas of which you've surely heard about.

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian I see nothing wrong with Mel Gibson's movie. The Jewish Priests and those that believed Jesus was a liar, demanded his crucifixion from Pilate. Pilate was reluctant and found Jesus not guilty of anything. This is what is says in the Bible. It doesn't matter how ruthless or cruel Pilate was, he still told the crowd "I don't see this man guilty of anything". If Mel Gibson distorts this to please Jews, THEN I will see something wrong with this movie. Understanding the true meaning of the crucifixion tells you that everyone was responsible for His death. Not merely Jews or Romans, but everyone. He knew He was sent to die. He died for a reason. That reason is SIN. And everyone sinned. Since when was Jesus perceived as a threat to Roman rule? I never actually read that he was a threat to the Empire in the Bible. Is it an assumption? Or recorded somewhere else? But it's not in the Bible. Again, Pilate didn't find him guilty of anything. If this movie is percieved as anti-semitic, then the Bible is anti-semitic too. It's nice to see the Bible being accused of being anti-semitic. That makes both Bible and Qur'an.

did you even read the earlier posts or just go to the last page and put your two cents in. Comeon, read the posts first.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Cool, so I am responsible for the death of a raving lunatic who probably never even existed? I feel so privileged! Tranceaholic, this isn't about the Bible. The bible was not written during Jesus' lifetime, and even if it had been, it contains to much bullshit that it's impossible to take it seriously. I'm yet to see you address a single point from my post, which primarily dealt with reputable first hand sources from the supposed time of Jesus. If Jesus did what he is claimed to have done in the bible, then he would have been included in the historical records of the day. I have yet to see any evidence of that. Unless you are willing to address my points, then quite frankly I don't see the point of discussing this.

see..i am not well aware of all the history books so i cant comment much..but just to let u know i learned about jesus in a history class when i was younger..does that count? or are they r just teaching us the bible in a MUSLEM country(went to school in egypt where i am originally from)..he was mentioned in there..i know muslems dont doubt his existance since he is mentioned in Quraan..he is established as one of god's profits along with Moses..does that also count or no? and i think but i am not sure Jews believe that he existed..so i pretty much covered the major religions and how he is learned in history classes overseas..any comments questions?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.