|
Important Information (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| priveye03 |
| 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. :rolleyes: |
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. |
|
|
| tranceaholic |
| 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! :p
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 bull 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? |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceaholic
see..i am not well aware of all the history books |
Ya, I had that feeling.
| quote: | | 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.. |
Well, I think you've just answered your own question. Aside from bible, Jesus is also mentioned in the Quran, so it's not that suprising that he's taught about in history classes. Besides, it's not 100% certain that he didn't exist, as well as it is certain that christianity had a huge impact on history. So, I would say there's a reason for being taught about Jesus, whether he existed or not. The same as I learned in history class the myth about Romulus and Remus being raised in a wolf pack.
| quote: | | he is established as one of god's profits along with Moses.. |
Yup, god really made a lot of money with those two :p
| quote: | | 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? |
Well, not that long ago everyone believed the earth was flat, although there was plenty of evidence showing the other way. There are no mentions of Jesus from the time he lived, the first ones appear many years later which makes it possible for the whole theory to be false. |
|
|
| tranceaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Ya, I had that feeling.
Well, I think you've just answered your own question. Aside from bible, Jesus is also mentioned in the Quran, so it's not that suprising that he's taught about in history classes. Besides, it's not 100% certain that he didn't exist, as well as it is certain that christianity had a huge impact on history. So, I would say there's a reason for being taught about Jesus, whether he existed or not. The same as I learned in history class the myth about Romulus and Remus being raised in a wolf pack.
Yup, god really made a lot of money with those two :P
Well, not that long ago everyone believed the earth was flat, although there was plenty of evidence showing the other way. There are no mentions of Jesus from the time he lived, the first ones appear many years later which makes it possible for the whole theory to be false. |
iabout no refrence about him..i bet there is refrence to chritianity and the profits and all that stuff..the history books were full of christian movements,the crusaders,the romans..etc..and at that time if u r not a christian why would u write about jesus, to u he is of no signifence just a guy talkin alot and got killed..why would u write about him..his followers werent that many at the time to make a strong movement, so to u he is just another person..jesus's effect came later on when believers increased,the only ones who would be intrested to write about him are his followers hence the bible..other than that what was his significance of the time to others..i dont think at the time of his death people outside israel know he who was..he was only known to hie belivers at the time and they wrote about him in the bible..other than that why should anyone care.. |
|
|
| Palestinian |
| it should also be added that the ones who wrote the four gospels were historians and one of them, John, was one of Jesus' friends and followers. I'm guessing that they were historical records before they became religious ones, which wouldn't differentiate them from any other historical records. just a thought. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceaholic
iabout no refrence about him..i bet there is refrence to chritianity and the profits and all that stuff..the history books were full of christian movements,the crusaders,the romans..etc..and at that time if u r not a christian why would u write about jesus, to u he is of no signifence just a guy talkin alot and got killed..why would u write about him..his followers werent that many at the time to make a strong movement, so to u he is just another person..jesus's effect came later on when believers increased,the only ones who would be intrested to write about him are his followers hence the bible..other than that what was his significance of the time to others..i dont think at the time of his death people outside israel know he who was..he was only known to hie belivers at the time and they wrote about him in the bible..other than that why should anyone care.. |
Ugh, I addressed this in my first post, which some people have conveniently ignored. There are reasons why he should have been included in the historical records of the time, the ones that I find most compelling are (again), outlined in my first post. If you take the bible as fact, then he should have been mentioned, as should some of the other divine events of the time that the bible claims occurred.
| quote: | Originally posted by Palestinian
it should also be added that the ones who wrote the four gospels were historians and one of them, John, was one of Jesus' friends and followers. I'm guessing that they were historical records before they became religious ones, which wouldn't differentiate them from any other historical records. just a thought. |
If they were career historians, then they must have been pretty damn hopeless at it. :p
How can you seriously consider the bible a historical reference? It contains so many absurdities, contradictions, ethically questionably commands, and downright lies that I think it's credibility as a historical, or even a 'true' document is virtually non existent. Either way, Jebus should be mentioned in records from the time of his alleged existence. mentioned by people who actually lived when he was supposedly alive.
Either way, I addressed that in my first post, which you have chosen to ignore as well. |
|
|
| priveye03 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceaholic
iabout no refrence about him..i bet there is refrence to chritianity and the profits and all that stuff..the history books were full of christian movements,the crusaders,the romans..etc..and at that time if u r not a christian why would u write about jesus, to u he is of no signifence just a guy talkin alot and got killed..why would u write about him..his followers werent that many at the time to make a strong movement, so to u he is just another person..jesus's effect came later on when believers increased,the only ones who would be intrested to write about him are his followers hence the bible..other than that what was his significance of the time to others..i dont think at the time of his death people outside israel know he who was..he was only known to hie belivers at the time and they wrote about him in the bible..other than that why should anyone care.. |
Well of course there are references to the crusades, christian movements, the romans, etc... Those were very signifigant movements at the time and were "history in the making" if you want to call it that. If a bunch of rowdies decided to kill those that did practice the same religion or look like them, you would probably write about it to, especially becasue of the length of the actual crusades, yes both of them. They weren't fighting for jesus, they were fighting for the land and the richness of the land that they conquered, hence the endless quarels amongst the troops after a city had fallen, or land.
Feel free to post the references you refered to, I would like to read them, or did you just make up these "references" off the top of your head.
The point is that the bible wasn't written until 68, I believe it is, years after his death. Think how many stories could get skewed (messed up) in that amount of time. Plus, without jesus, or some kind of savior, then christianity wouldn't be what it is today. Therefore they had to write about it, but again, after many years of nothing.
And you still haven't proved any valid arguements to why the bible is a signifigant historical record. I would like you to address, present (with sources) and arguement just based on that, then go back to artic's first post and refut his statements. This is getting bland. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by priveye03
The point is that the bible wasn't written until 68, I believe it is, years after his death. Think how many stories could get skewed (messed up) in that amount of time. Plus, without jesus, or some kind of savior, then christianity wouldn't be what it is today. Therefore they had to write about it, but again, after many years of nothing. |
Another thing that I think should be considered here is the possibility that Jesus was merely invented to 'spice up' Christianity. Without Jesus, Christianity starts to look a lot like another branch of Judaism. I think it's entirely possible that the Church (OR Christian leaders at the time) thought they would gain more converts if they inserted 'the son of god' into the script, so to speak.
Without Jebus, what has Christianity got going that Judaism doesn't? |
|
|
| priveye03 |
| If it wasn't Jesus then it would have most surely been someone else, like Bob the guy that took a big bath and washed us of all our sins. Or Tombo that slaughtered Pigeons for our sins. |
|
|
| tranceaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by priveye03
Well of course there are references to the crusades, christian movements, the romans, etc... Those were very signifigant movements at the time and were "history in the making" if you want to call it that. If a bunch of rowdies decided to kill those that did practice the same religion or look like them, you would probably write about it to, especially becasue of the length of the actual crusades, yes both of them. They weren't fighting for jesus, they were fighting for the land and the richness of the land that they conquered, hence the endless quarels amongst the troops after a city had fallen, or land.
Feel free to post the references you refered to, I would like to read them, or did you just make up these "references" off the top of your head.
The point is that the bible wasn't written until 68, I believe it is, years after his death. Think how many stories could get skewed (messed up) in that amount of time. Plus, without jesus, or some kind of savior, then christianity wouldn't be what it is today. Therefore they had to write about it, but again, after many years of nothing.
And you still haven't proved any valid arguements to why the bible is a signifigant historical record. I would like you to address, present (with sources) and arguement just based on that, then go back to artic's first post and refut his statements. This is getting bland. |
well i have been all through this read from the beggining..i never used the bible as a historical refrence..palistinian did..i do agree that thr bible is full of contradictions..and i also mentioned that i am not a history buff..i just refered to why I think there is no mention of him, how i read it in history books at school but thats in egypt,how other religion believe in his existance and a bunch of stuff..are we gonna keep goin around in circles or what...i suggest u rea who posted what and start from the beginning |
|
|
| tranceaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Another thing that I think should be considered here is the possibility that Jesus was merely invented to 'spice up' Christianity. Without Jesus, Christianity starts to look a lot like another branch of Judaism. I think it's entirely possible that the Church (OR Christian leaders at the time) thought they would gain more converts if they inserted 'the son of god' into the script, so to speak.
Without Jebus, what has Christianity got going that Judaism doesn't? |
can u tell me then who exactly started christianity..and how he/they spread it..u seem to know alot then plz inform me about the history of christianity from ur view..how do u think it all started and spread.. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceaholic
can u tell me then who exactly started christianity..and how he/they spread it..u seem to know alot then plz inform me about the history of christianity from ur view..how do u think it all started and spread.. |
Well, I know you directed the question to arctic, but I'll add my opinion too if you don't mind.
Before christianity, there was a similar movement in Egypt, the Cult of Osiris. Its teachings were quite different from the teachings in Torah, infact they were very similar to the teachings of the new testament. Osiris was a solar god that was killed and resurrected, and after his resurrection he opened up the doors to heavenly afterlife to all the mortals. He was the god of sun and light, the two themes often mentioned in the new testament. The idea about the cult of Osiris spread into jew populated territories and sprawned an essene cult. But the doctrines of the cult were partially misinterpreted and mixed up with the teachings in the old testament so the cult ended up as the jewish version of Cult of Osiris. The more ortodox jews, pharizees, expected a messiah that would be a human descendant of king David. The essens, however, modified that belief and assigned their messiah godly attributes, or to be more specific, the attributes of Osiris. Now, the political happenings during that time were really complicated, so it would take me hours of research and a few pages of text to describe them. Instead I'll redirect you to the site I've mentioned in another thread that covers the development of early christianity and it's relation to the cult of Osiris:http://www.geocities.com/pagancx/cover_page_osiris.htm. |
|
|
|
|
