I think everybody's heard about it . . but is it any good?
i may go and see it this weekend? heard theres lots of violence in it.

Originally posted by Lestat
I think everybody's heard about it . . but is it any good?
i may go and see it this weekend? heard theres lots of violence in it.

I don't want to spoil it for you, but they go and kill off the main character right at the end!

Personally, I preferred the book - that was REALLY scary!

I forget which comedian it was but he was sure that JC would be well ticked off should he ever return. All the good things he did, raising the dead, healing the sick, feeding the masses and turning water into wine. He comes back to earth and finds all he's remembered for is the one thing he's been spending the last 2000 years trying to forget.

LOL! . . Mojo!! how could you do that to me . . telling me he dies in the end! i heard in the sequel he comes back to life? . . .

By the way Max, that reminds me of the girl i used to work in the office with. I told her i'd been to see Titanic at the cinema and she asked 'Really! whats it about'!!! - no word of a lie.

I told her it was about tap-dancing aliens attacking ships.

i think it was Bill Hicks, Max.

"All these christians walking around with crosses or crucifixes around their neck. You'd think that if Jesus Christ returned to us, that'd be the LAST thing he'd want to see."

Something like that anyway.

Wilf

Saw The Passion of the Christ today - very moving but also very gory.

Pity they still portray crucifications innacurately [by then the Romans were nailing people through the wrists rather than the hands...]

A must-see film but bring tissues plus strong stomach :(

Do you think they will make a part 2 ?

Originally posted by rtapper
Saw The Passion of the Christ today - very moving but also very gory.

Pity they still portray crucifications innacurately [by then the Romans were nailing people through the wrists rather than the hands...]


A factual/historical inaccuracy, true, but a tiny one considering the main character probably never existed at all :)

Originally posted by mojoworking
A factual/historical inaccuracy, true, but a tiny one considering the main character probably never existed at all :)

Amen to that :)

That seems like a bit of a paradox considering your avatar is about god!!!! :P

Originally posted by AngelEyes
That seems like a bit of a paradox considering your avatar is about god!!!! :P

Yeah i suppose it is! lol :)

I know it's not really about the film but on Easter Saturday in the daytime there was a bloke walking around Firth Park, carrying a cross, thorns around his head, all his clothes ripped and fake blood all over. Did anybody else see him? It was horrible.

I have not seen this film yet, however i have been informed that it is a tearful film and will make you cry.

Can this be true?

Originally posted by mojoworking
A factual/historical inaccuracy, true, but a tiny one considering the main character probably never existed at all :)

How's that mojo? Based on what (or not based on what as it may be)? It's seems to be a statement in vogue these days...

Hmmm... didn't the Romans keep one or two records? ISTR they had one about this Jesus bloke they once crucified in Judea for upsetting the locals with his tales of everlasting life.

Originally posted by Tony
Hmmm... didn't the Romans keep one or two records? ISTR they had one about this Jesus bloke they once crucified in Judea for upsetting the locals with his tales of everlasting life.

Ahh Tony you ruined my Socratic dialogue. Ok out with it....

If we are talking about Jesus on a historical basis, not theological etc., not saying whether he was the son of god, really did miracles and so forth...but just asking is there evidence that a man named Jesus existed around 0-33 AD and was known for inciting some kind of regional disturbance and to push it further was killed for that.

If that is the question what do you think of the various historical artifacts that exist (not talking about Christian writings even though they are historical artifacts)...such as the writings of Josephus or Tacitus?


:thumbsup:

Originally posted by genesiscouch
How's that mojo? Based on what (or not based on what as it may be)? It's seems to be a statement in vogue these days...

Well, obviously no one can know for certain what happened, but it's probably a safe bet to say it wasn't anything like how the Bible portrays it (or the latest film made by a Catholic fundamentalist)

Or do you believe the Bible to be a factual record of events?

Are you sure you're from Canada and not Alabama? :)

Originally posted by mojoworking
Well, obviously no one can know for certain what happened, but it's probably a safe bet to say it wasn't anything like how the Bible portrays it (or the latest film made by a Catholic fundamentalist)

Or do you believe the Bible to be a factual record of events?

Are you sure you're from Canada and not Alabama? :)

Yup :D Actually I agree with your statement here. It's just that there's seems to be a fuzzy line these days between saying the canonical gospels are not a factual record and that Jesus did not occur historically. The one does not lead to the other...know what I mean?

Edit: To be clear that Yup is in regard to your last question...:)

Point taken.

(And no offence was meant by the joke at the end) :)

The trouble is that C21st society seems quite keen on creating its own reality, and usually one that fits in with the particular set of moral values that we seek to follow - I'll hazard a global paraphrase at "possession aquisition".

Now if you extend that to record writing in C1st Judea, I guess it was the same. The Romans and the local governors would keep accurate records, but they would represent their version of morals and desires - I'll hazard a guess at maintaining a stable Empire.

Now factor in that the Bible is a little like the Encyclopedia Brittanica - ie in it's umpteenth edition, and accept that its had one or two rewrites in the last 2000 years, and each rewrite had an agenda, from translation to supression to power to wealth. The current version of the Bible (whichever version one you choose) is certainly based on some facts, but it's also an effective instrument of control.

I'll hazard a final contemporary paraphrase - "give us the power and we will give you everlasting life!". That's one hell of a deal ('scuse the pun)

It doesn't really matter if you believe it or not, it's the symbolism which is the important thing.

Originally posted by Tony
Hmmm... didn't the Romans keep one or two records? ISTR they had one about this Jesus bloke they once crucified in Judea for upsetting the locals with his tales of everlasting life.

Which records are these? from what I have read there is no mention of Jesus in any Roman records of that time. are these records you mention reliable or just another case of 'doctoring' by Vatican scribes? also, can anyone explain where the Jesus translation came from? most other names in the Bible are translated directly into English. Jesus's Hebrew name (if, indeed, he did exist) would have been Yeshu, which is Joshua in English.

Hi Killian,

If you look at my post above you will see I noted two extra-biblical sources which mention a Jesus/Christ.

Here is the first one by the Roman writer Tacitus from somewhere after the turn of the second century AD (~115 AD).

"To dispel the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was Emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following."
Annals 15 : 44.

The second writer is Josephus who was originally a Jewish zealot but later 'turned' and became what you could think of as an advisor to Rome on Jewish affairs. He wrote a few books on Jewish history which form the majority of our understanding about Jewish history and affairs during the first century AD. His works are a huge area of research and there is a lot of debate about which portions have been added to etc. Anyways the first is a little more suspect, the second is considered to be more reliable.

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."
Antiquities, Book 18, 63-64.


"Convened the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish religious court / governing body). He had brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned."
Antiquities, Book 20, 200.

I think that should answer your question as to extra-biblical sources for the time being. Yes they exist. Are they problematic? of course just like any historical texts. Should you continue to consider the da Vinci Code to be based on fact? No.

Your second question refers to the name of Jesus. You are incorrect in your assumption. Anyways, here are the details in Hebrew:

Salvation = YESHUA
Joshua = YEHOSHUA.
Jesus = YESHU (in Talmud)

The angel Gabriel told Mary to name her son "Salvation". That's where the name comes from. Anyways, you are assuming this would be transliterated into English...well from Hebrew it's not. Remember that the Tanakh (Christian Old Testament) is originally in Hebrew (mostly) and the Christian New Testament is in Greek. So the Greek language uses various tenses and declensions, thus we have yesou in the genetive, yesoun in the accusative, and yesous in the nominative. Nominative of course being the the form the subject of a sentence takes. Holy smokes and Mary it's Jesus. If you pronounce with a hard J you need to go to Spain more often ;)

[Edit because I forgot to repeat the point] - So what's the point? The same point I made above...you can separate the idea of there being a Jesus in Judae sometime between 0-33 AD and the idea that he was the messiah, son of god, buried in a tomb, resurrected on the third day, ascended to heaven and so on.