Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

The Music Prof. With Another Review Of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST!!

Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...

So now the story seems to be that Icon may have overstated the Pope’s alleged reaction to seeing THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. The Vatican now claims that the Pope never said “It is as it was,” and that he would not be making any official comment on the movie. Man, that’s gotta suck for Newmarket. They almost had the chance to quote the Pope on a movie poster.

Not that there’s any lack of good reviews for this film out there. I’m still struggling to articulate just what I felt about the movie, and hope to have a review ready soon. In the meantime, here’s someone who seems to have reacted quite strongly...

Hi Harry,

I have been reading your site on an almost daily basis for about 2 years. I love checking in daily to see what's happening in the movie world. I have especially appreciated your coverage of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." I had the privilege this afternoon of sitting with 4,000 other church leaders at a special screening at Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago. It's part of an attempt on the behalf of Icon Productions to get the support of influential church leaders for the movie. Mel Gibson was there in person for a Q&A time afterwards. From what I can see, the strategy is a huge success!

What we saw was a working print that was missing some effects and the final music score. I won't go into a huge amount of detail on the movie because the other reviews posted in the last few weeks have been very descriptive. However, let me share a few thoughts:

- The use of original languages is brilliant and works very effectively. There is not nearly as much dialogue as most other movies because Gibson's intent is to tell the story mainly through visuals. Using Aramaic and Latin gives the movie a very realistic feel that I have never experienced in a "Jesus" movie.

- The violence is very graphic and brutal. When you think of violent films, you imagine the first 20 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" or scenes from "Braveheart." But in "The Passion," the shots do not just glimpse Jesus' broken body--the LINGER on it. Predictable, the most disturbing images were during the flogging (whipping) and crucifixion scenes. At times I could barely watch it. It helped me understand better the Old Testament prophet Isaiah's words "by his stripes we are healed." When you see the flogging scene, you'll know what I mean by "stripes." However, the violence is not gratuitous, but wholly necessary to realistically and factually tell this story.

- The acting is simply marvelous. Jim Caviezel is basically unrecognizeable as Jesus. He gives an outstanding performance that is Oscar-worthy. It is not just a matter of acting like he was in pain--he simply had to BE in pain during some of those scenes.

- The accusations of the film being anti-Semitic are a joke. SOME of the Jews (most notably the Sanhedrin) were responsible, along with Herod and Pilate, but the movie in now way points out the Jewish people as the only ones responsible for Jesus' death.

- This will easily be the most important film released in 2004. It is the most graphic and accurate Jesus film ever made, and every person ought to see this movie when it's released. It doesn't matter if you consider yourself a follower of Jesus or not -- you owe it to yourself to witness this amazing piece of art. Mel Gibson has given us a masterpiece that must be seen to be believed. Really, no joke. I LOVE the Lord of the Rings movies, Spider-Man, the Last Samurai, and all the other great films in recent memory, but "The Passion" is on a whole different level altogether in terms of importance, achievement and raw artistic, cultural and spiritual value.

After the movie, Bill Hybels (the senior pastor of Willow Creek) did a Q&A time with Gibson. For someone with so much fame, money and success, Gibson is a very humble man. It is a real joy to see someone with so much passion and energy for a project. He spoke openly about his faith in Christ and why this film is so important to him. Gibson is Catholic, but Christians of every variety have welcomed him with open arms. This is a good thing! It takes something very special to gain the support of Christians from a wide spectrum. From the Pope to Billy Graham, beleivers of all kinds are turning out in droves to support Gibson. I find it ironic that it is a work of art that has brought people together on this level.

A man named Paul from Icon Productions accompanied Gibson to the screening, and they briefly mentioned the "internet guys" and the screening from BNAT this past December. They mentioned that you guys loved the movie. It was obvious both he and Mel appreciated the invitation to BNAT and enjoyed being there.

I am a music minister is a medium-size church not too far from Chicago, but in a couple of weeks I am moving to St. Louis to be a college professor. So if you use this on your site, call me "Music Prof."

Music Prof.

Well, I appreciate you taking the time to write in, and I’m glad to see the film is still causing very strong reactions from those who see it.

"Moriarty" out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Jan. 21, 2004, 7:21 a.m. CST

    Joke trailer

    by Bcphil

    That one trailer where it said.. And in 2004, the Jews will Kill jesus Should be used. I wonder if we could see a Passion 2 if this is successful?

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 7:23 a.m. CST

    Do we need to see this...

    by TheAquabatman

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian, but do we need to be desensitised to the death of christ and perhaps strip away the spiritual message and replace it with Hollywood visuals.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 8:48 a.m. CST

    Oh, and THIS is the accurate portrayal, then?

    by unwell_arena

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 9:19 a.m. CST

    Why can't these Christians get it through their heads that their

    by Mister Pink

    Isaiah wasn't talking about Jesus by the way. The "suffering servant" in that passage is a personification of Israel. It's not a Messianic prophesy. It's not even an accurate translation (it says "bruises," not "stripes."

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Thank you, Moriarty and Music Prof. :)

    by viola123

    Gosh, I can read aboutt his film all day long. I so want to see it. Fortunately, we'll all get the chance soon. I was very happy for it that it got a wide release, and from everything that we've read about "The Passion of the Christ," it is a good thing because I feel there will be a great many people who will seek it out, to see it themselves, and to experience what all of the lucky early-viewers have. That's so awesome about BNAT and how it seemed to have given Mel Gibson and his film the right exposure it needed, at the right time. That so rocks. Thank you for your review, Music Prof., and we will await your's, Moriarty. I can't wait to read it, and to of course, see "The Passion of the Christ" myself. It's going to be an amazing experience, and I feel that the word "important" will indeed be used in relation to this film by many. From all that we know of it, from what we've read, it is, and it isn't going to be anything about hate, but about a man who lived all those years ago, and who still fires up passion today.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 10:11 a.m. CST

    Too late, Mister Pink.

    by FluffyUnbound

    You have spilled way too much virtual ink for you to now claim that you don't think the movie is important. Time, too, is a currency, and you have spent a lot of that sort of greenback on this film already, and it's not even Ash Wednesday yet. That's the funny thing about taking a side: once you do it, you have dignified your opponent to at least that extent. A better approach would have been to ignore the film completely. The Bible is certainly a silly, silly document. But that's not the same as saying that nobody "cares" about it. You couldn't possibly perform the sort of textual criticism you bring to bear if you didn't "care", at least a little.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 10:44 a.m. CST

    It's a film

    by zacdilone

    It's true that the "Music Prof" brought it up first in this review, but the bottom line remains that I wish we could just treat this as a film and not have every Talkback turn into a Christian/Non-Christian bashing exercise. That said, though, anyone who calls the Bible a "silly, silly document" deserves at least a little bashing. Even non-Jews and non-Christians have to recognize its importance.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 11:17 a.m. CST

    Is there an echo in here?

    by FluffyUnbound

    The Bible is, in fact, very silly. It it also very important, and has had a great impact on history. The same could be said of "Das Kapital". The two concepts are not contradictory. I was taking issue with Mister Pink precisely because he believes that the fact that most of Christianity's narrative is obviously false somehow means that no one should "care" about the film; and the two just aren't related.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 11:49 a.m. CST

    I'm just tired of being told how "important" it is...

    by Mister Pink

    ...especially when not one person can articulate any reason WHY it's important when actually pressed on it. The MESSAGE of the movie (worship Jesus or burn) is asinine and stale. No matter how well made the film is, the ultimate message is just the same trite pitch for Christian "salvation' which is available in any Chick Tract or VEGGIE TALES episode. I don't understand what all these reviewers think is so different or special or compelling about THIS film. Lingering over the torture of Jesus may be moving, but it's no MORE moving than the torture of any OTHER person and it doesn't make the supernatural crap any more true. Could one of the people who love this movie so much please explain what I could possibly learn from it that I don't already know? Please bear in mind that I don't regard the crucifixion of Jesus as having any mystic significance. I don't believe he died for my sins. I don't believe he came back to life. I don't believe in God. If I don't believe any of that stuff then what do I "have to know" about the crucifixion. That crucifixion sucked? Yes it did. So what. I would argue that it was probably not as bad as being burned at the stake by Christians, though. Gibson should make a movie about the Inquisition. THAT'S what Christians "need to know."

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 11:57 a.m. CST

    the most important film of 2004...

    by boohallsmalls

    yeah, maybe if you're a christian, which the majority of the world is not. and thats only maybe. why is it both christians and americans live in the belief that they (and by they I mean we) are the center of the known universe. get over it. first off, no film is really that important, except where it contributes to the art of filmmaking, which this film seems like it may actually make a difference in how some films are made (hopefully for the better). Second, any film like this, based in deep personal religious beliefs is dangerous because of the unintended reaction an audience may have to it. Especially a Jesus, can really serve as a call to action for fundamentalists nuts, even if the films intentions are good. Not that i believe any art should be censored, but it is something people need to be wary of.

  • ...that he spends so much time and effort and space here telling us that it's not important. He's been contributing his opinion repeatedly at every single POTC talkback here. He doth protest too much, methinks.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 12:03 p.m. CST

    mr pink. . .and others. . .

    by polycarp's folly

    Wow. There definately is a lot of anger out there towards this particular theology. I am completely fascinated by the reactions of movie fanboys. The most interesting thing is how certain posters will jump from review to review in order to comment on every single one. They really want their opinions heard. I guess this goes to show how passionate people feel about this topic. I just wish that we could have an appropraite discussion of this film and it's theological implications. It is interesting to see that most of the more aggressive posters can not present any good, rational arguments without letting emotion carry them away. The tirades of profanity and personal attacks are puzzling in such a discussion of ethics and worldviews. It just goes to show that this film is, in fact, a powerful and important work of art. It is extremely relevant in a society that has to decide whether it will embrace it's decidedly "christian" roots or whether it will move into a new "post christian" age. VERY INTERESTING!!!

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 12:12 p.m. CST

    there i was, 3,000 feet up . . . without a parachute.

    by Hud

    wait: didn't we already have the big movie about the passion and martyrdom of a hottie savior? I thought it was called The Matrix: Revolutions. That was at least as personal a vision of the Passion as this appears to be. But with a much sexier dress code!

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Mel, As Catholic as the Pope?

    by agnosticyesno

    First of all I must start of by stating that I am an agnostic and think that Stoic philosophy is more vital than Christianity especially today. Mel Gibson professes to be member of break away sect of the Catholic Church. This sect disagrees with many of the changes the Catholic Church implemented during Vatican II, including no longer saying the mass in Latin. This group seems to have a very romanticized view of the Middle Ages. So Mel Gibson isn

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Mister Pink

    by FluffyUnbound

    TPOTC is, in fact, probably quite a bit more moving as art if you suspend disbelief and grant the premise that Jesus was, in fact, divine. All of the paradoxes about the sacrifice of Christ click into "meaningfulness" only if that premise is accepted. But, a film like "The Last Temptation of Christ" also asked you to assert certain parts of the theology as true so that you could productively examine Marty's vision of Kazantkakis' insights into OTHER parts of the theology. "If Jesus was both wholly God and wholly man, what exactly does that MEAN?" Or "Since Christ had to be crucified to accomplish his earthly end, was Judas really his betrayer, or his servant?" These questions aren't very compelling if you won't attempt to experience the work on its own terms. But they are very interesting if you do. Look at this this way: if I refuse to countenance the idea of a talking pig, then "Babe" is not a very interesting or compelling movie emotionally, either. Since pigs can't talk, this is just another pig, and it doesn't matter to me if he gets eaten, because all pigs get eaten, and it doesn't matter to me if he can herd sheep, because it doesn't affect him one way or the other. But isn't that the wrong way to watch the movie?

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Finally, a GOOD Christian movie

    by changer624

    As a Christian, I've constantly been frustrated with stupid watered down Christian films. I think that Christian filmmakers have good stories to tell its just that they cant tell it in the right way. Anyone whos seen any of the Left Behind movies knows what I'm talking about. Its good to finally see an artistic and well crafted story on the life of Christ. Thank you Mel Gibson.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 5:29 p.m. CST

    accuracy? not even close...

    by Danger Mouse

    I still can't understand why Gibbson would go to the trouble of using dead languages to be accurate and then completly wimp out in other areas... For excample, his Roman soldiers do not look anything like legionaries at the time of Christ. This film may be Bilbicaly accurate but it sure isn't historicaly accurate. I'll go and see it though cuz Monica's in it...mmmmmmm. Oh and whether you are Christian or not, Christ is a very important cultural and historical figure who's story is DEEPLY imbedded in our culture...that makes this an important story no matter what your beliefs are.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 7:48 p.m. CST

    not accurate

    by pablo2004

    Pilate and the Romans in that region would have spoken Greek not Latin. In fact the name Jesus is the Greek word for Joshua. How about a review from a nonfanatic? How about a review from a Jew?

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 8:10 p.m. CST

    Mynameisnobody the costumes are wrong!

    by Danger Mouse

    Sorry, but I don't care how much research they SAID they did the costumes ARE NOT ACCURATE!!! The easiest thing to check is the Roman soldier's equipment. A kiddies book could have shown them the right gear, yet they used that stupid leather lorica like they used in cheesy sword and sandle films from half a century ago... This is not to make a judgement on the films worth in other areas however.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 8:19 p.m. CST

    Mynameisnobody BTW

    by Danger Mouse

    I am not at teenager and I am a historian and I work for a publishing company. So don't be so patronising; especialy when you are wrong. This is not hard stuff that they got wrong but easily checkable facts!

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Greek Not Latin

    by agnosticyesno

    The language spoken by the aristocracy in Rome was not Latin but Greek, and it was the

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 9:09 p.m. CST

    Mynameisnobody cont.

    by Danger Mouse

    You might be interested to know that I have been a "hired history concultant" on film and TV AND I know many others who also have done this kind of work. Everyone from the director and the art department down to the stuntmen seem to feel it is ther duty to ignore any historical direction. The usual cry of "its only a movie" or "no one will notice" or "that's not my vision (from an art director)" is the only reason ever given. Mel Gibbson is hardly know for his adherance to history (ie. Braveheart) Mynameisnobody, your condescension is hardly very "Christian".

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 9:13 p.m. CST

    "dead language"

    by Danger Mouse

    I stand corrected on Aramaic...It wasn't quite the context I ment.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 9:53 p.m. CST

    The trouble is gonna be waiting for the sequel.

    by Some Dude

    I mean it's already been over 2000 years. When's he coming back? We only had to wait 16 years for Lucas to start the PT.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 10:37 p.m. CST

    Christian flicks

    by BillEmic

    Hey, if you want a truly GREAT Christian flick, seek out the "Revelation" movies...the first one stars Jeff Fahey(!), while the second has the tag team of Gary Busey and Howie Mandel(!!!). If that doesn't strengthen one's faith, I don't know WHAT will!

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 11:04 p.m. CST

    Mr. Pink has dropped another steamy log onto the board.

    by Durendal

    Get off your fucking high horse already. In case you didn't notice, Christ's message during his ministry was NOT "Worship me or burn." His message was to love your neighbor and do good to all men. You can rant and rave about the Inquisition, but it means jack shit. If I remember correctly the Inquisition occurred after the Black Plague. During the Plague, priests were dropping dead all the time as they were tending to the sick. The Church ran low and had to put more priests into business. They brought a lot of shady characters in. These shady characters practically ran the church for centuries, replacing dead priests with more scumbags, which is one of the reasons the Inquisition took place. Dirty priests were torturing people left and right for pleasure and profit. It was HUMAN FAILING, YOU DICK. You keep blaming the theology when you're completely missing the faults of human nature. There are always going to be people who will use a philosophy to further their own agenda or to gain power. Perhaps you're forgetting that for every Jerry Falwell-style Christian asshole, there are several more who are good people. The kindly minister who dispenses good advice to his parishoners and helps the poor. The priest who becomes a father figure to the children of his congregation. You are so caught up on the negatives that you are blinded to the positives.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 11:04 p.m. CST

    Greek? Latin? It would depend on who Pilate is talking to.

    by Bill Maher

    It is true that among the elites, Greek was used. But among commoners, it was mostly Latin -vulgar Latin. Even during the reign of Augustus and Tiberius @ the time Jesus was supposedly born, much of the Roman Army was made up of Gallic and Germanic troops who only spoke SOME Latin. Many of the slaves and other workers were familiar only with Latin and their native languages, too. =-=-=-=-=-=- Any word on whether Monica Belluci shows her knockers? Probably not, since the Bible-thumpers would go apeshit.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 11:08 p.m. CST

    The extent of everyday use of Greek by 1st Century Romans can be

    by FluffyUnbound

    Greek was a literary language and an aristocratic affectation for the Roman upper class. An educated Roman of the patrician class was expected to be able to speak unaccented Greek, and to be able to quote from the "classics" [Homer was remote enough to be the subject of classicist study for the Romans, too] but it was not like they sat around speaking straight Greek to each other in ordinary conversation. Equestrian class Romans, and certainly the head count Romans or the freshly-minted citizens from what is now northern Italy who made up the legions' rank and file in the first century, would not know how to speak Greek - or, at least, it would not be as common for them to do so as it would be for patricians. Much later, after the time of say the Antonines, the eastern half of the empire became dominant, and everyday use of Greek started to squeeze out Latin. But that would not have been the case at the time of the crucifixion. The Roman legionaries depicted in the film would have spoken Latin. Pilate would have spoken either Latin or Greek, based largely on his preference, since the Jews he had to manage were his social inferiors in every way, and he would not have found it necessary to impress them by quoting verses from the Iliad from memory. If he spoke Greek to them it would have been for convenience; as many have noted, knowledge of Greek was common in the eastern Mediterranean - but a working knowledge of Latin was ALSO common, for the men who made up the native ruling classes and client kings in the provinces. Many of the various Herods, for example, lived in Rome at the imperial court for extended periods,and certainly knew Latin. Caiphas probably spoke Latin. So it isn't certain that Gibson's choice of Latin is 100% correct, but it also isn't certain that it is wrong, as some people have been implying.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 11:19 p.m. CST

    mynameisnobody, you don't know what you're talking about. Shut t

    by Mister Pink

    Romans in the provinces spoke Greek. Gibson doesn't even get the Latin dialect right. He uses Ecclesiastical pronunciations instead of the Classical that would have been authentic. More egregiously, he shoots his own pretense at verisimilitude in the ass by casting Mr. Whitey Whitebread Caviezel as Jesus instead of an actor who genuinely looks middle eastern. It may be a semi-accurate rendering of the Gospel of John (with some good old medievel anti-semitic images thrown in) but it's not even close to historically accurate. You really shouldn't spout off without knowing the facts.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 11:35 p.m. CST


    by Mister Pink

    You misunderstand me. I agree that JESUS didn't say "worship me or burn." I am contending that such is the message of CHRISTIANITY which has virtually nothing to do with what Jesus actually taught. Jesus was just a rabbi who had some interesting, even subversive teachings on ethics and wisdom. He never said he was the Messiah and he definitely never said he was God (and the two claims would have been mutually exclusive anyway. The Jewish Messiah isn't supposed to be divine). Paul basically ignored everything Jesus ever taught (Paul quotes Jesus only once in his letters and it's in reference to some ritualistic language in the Eucharist. Paul never once references anything Jesus taught or did. He speaks only in abstract, mystical terms about the "resurrection," a purely mythical event, utterly unrelated to the historical figure of Jesus. He deified Jesys, fused his new cult with Greco-Roman mystery traditions, and we ended up with the trainwreck theology that Christianity now represents. I have nothing against Jesus himself. Jesus would be appalled at Christianity. I meant that GIBSON'S message was "worship Jesus or burn," that it's a stupid, illogical and inhumane message and there is nothing "important" about it.......and yes, individual Christians have been good, but Christianity as an institution, and Christian theology as a rational, logical construction both leave a lot to be desired.

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 11:53 p.m. CST

    That Silly Bible? Those silly Fundamentalists and reactionaries

    by agnosticyesno

    The silly thing is not the Bible but rather calling the Bible Silly. What Christians call the Old and New Testament are documents similar to

  • Jan. 21, 2004, 11:57 p.m. CST


    by Danger Mouse

    I still think English would have been better. They did use classical Latin in the film so why not use a language we can understand. It just seems to laboured and pointless. One of things that might have been a good idea at the time but became a headache once they looked into it. Sometimes there is a fine line between a strong concept and an annoying gimmick. I will reserve my judgement until I see the film though. While Mel has a poor attitude to history he knows how to make emotional cinema. I guess that's more important in the end; after all it is called "The Passion" (costumes etc. still wrong though!)

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 12:06 a.m. CST

    Agnosticyesno - spot on...

    by Danger Mouse

    I agree with pretty much all that you said. Just because something conveys a "truth" doesn't mean it is literaly true. The older churches now all accept that much of the bible needs to be put in context to understand, why not the so called Fundamentalists (Selective Literasts would be a better term).

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 12:08 a.m. CST


    by Danger Mouse

    d'oh! Sorrie bout da spellin...

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 12:15 a.m. CST


    by Mister Pink

    Actually, it's a real BA from a real university. You on the other hand sound like a high school kid. John has a different timeline than the synoptics for the crucifixion. Essentially, the synoptics have Jesus being executed the day after the Passover while John places it ON the Passover. WHY is not a question which has a known factual answer, but basically, John was probably just trying to draw a more obvious parallel between Jesus and the Pascal Lamb by having him executed at the same time as the lambs were sacrificed. Why did you suppose that this queston would expose anything about me? If you know anything about Biblical criticism you know that the conflicting timelines for the crucifixion are a matter of some debate and speculation. It's not a way to test anybody for a correct answer.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 12:21 a.m. CST

    More on Greek: Fluffy and mynameisnobody

    by agnosticyesno

    I agree that Latin was used for business affairs and obviously spoken by Romans as well as Greek. However, Greek was certainly used among the aristocracy and others within the Roman Empire, and it is not an exaggeration. Paul of Tarsus, as an example wrote all of his letters to the Churches through out the Roman Empire in Koine. Paul was a contemporary of Peter and the other apostles, and if you recall he was an educated Roman citizen. What was considered as

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 12:25 a.m. CST

    Hey Christians...

    by davros pool

    A bit of the subject but I've always idly wondered... If Adam and Eve had two (or three - unsure) boys, how did they father the human race? I know it gets hot over there, but surely they didn't get that "dirty"?

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 12:27 a.m. CST

    mynameisnobody yer right

    by Danger Mouse

    Actualy Mynameisnobody does sound a bit dodgy, dispite getting his name from one of my all time fav movies. Just accept that this film is very much Mel's vision and enjoy it for that. If you get something more out of it, the Big Mel has done his job well; but to go on and on about how accurate it is when it is clearly speculative (in the case of the languages) and outright wrong (in the case of the costumes, armour, not using semite actors etc.) is crazy.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 12:34 a.m. CST

    Davros pool, that's easy...

    by Danger Mouse

    That's easy to answer. Adam and Eve are alligorical figues that represent the whole of manking in thier natural state (ie, living in harmony with nature; the Garden of Eden) and are not ment to seen as literal figures. It's part of a foundation myth. This doesn't de-value Genesis but rather makes it more powerful. To think that they had such a beautiful and poetic explanation for the dawn of history when it was written...

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 12:47 a.m. CST

    Agnosticyesno...a nitpick...

    by Mister Pink

    Sorry to to be punctilious prick but Homeric Greek is actually of an earlier era than Attic and is a different dialect. If they were quoting the ILIAD they were quoting Homeric Greek, not Attic. You were right about everything else. Koine was the lingua franca of the provinces.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 12:49 a.m. CST

    bleedin' allegory

    by davros pool

    Y'see, that's why I never got Christianity - too much of a circular argument. Definite proof, if you need it, that God (or that one at least) is/was a woman. God: "Do you believe?" Man: "I need something to believe in." God: "Then you don't believe." Woman: "Do I look fat?" Man: "No, you look great." Woman: "Don't lie."

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 12:55 a.m. CST

    you get out of it what you want davros pool

    by Danger Mouse

    Pretty much all religions are like this. Life has no easy answers. I'm not realy a Christian as such but I can still accept the power in Judeo Christian mythos in the same way I see the significance in the lessons taught by traditional fairy tales. Faith by its very nature must be personal and can never be forced.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 12:57 a.m. CST

    Davro's Pool

    by Mister Pink

    The literalist answer to your question is that they believe Adam and Eve also had daughters (which Genesis does not mention) and that Cain and Seth propagated the race by porking their sisters. If you press them on it, the fundamentalists will tell you that God fixed it so they wouldn't have any two-headed babies and then after there was enough people he lowered the incest ban.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 12:58 a.m. CST

    God as a woman

    by Danger Mouse

    Actualy God is refered to as female several times in the Bible. The one I like best is when God is said to be a lioness protecting her cubs.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 1:01 a.m. CST

    Mr. Pink is right...

    by Danger Mouse

    but then fundamentalists are hypocritical twits...(generalisation I know, but I have found it to be true in almost every case.) I have no problem with other christians though.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 1:03 a.m. CST

    God as a woman

    by davros pool

    Let's face it, if he was a man, he wouldn't have put bollocks on the outside.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 1:08 a.m. CST

    Very true!

    by Danger Mouse

    True true (just been horse ridding...)

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 1:33 a.m. CST

    Mr. Pink

    by agnosticyesno

    Mr. Pink what theology are you talking about? Have your read any of the

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 1:42 a.m. CST

    wrong again mynameisnobody

    by Danger Mouse

    Wrong again! You say nobody could have done better and that they were meticulous in their costume research yet they have made BASIC mistakes. I am not a linguist so I won't comment about things I know little about but your supposed highschool dropout could have done a better job with the costume/armour design. At least they wouldn't have used "The Golden Years of Hollywood" as source material. That said, I will probably like this film and I am looking forward to it. I own a copy of Braveheart yet it is one of the least acurate films ever to be called "historical".

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 1:46 a.m. CST

    Homeric Greek

    by agnosticyesno

    You're right and I'm wrong. Attic Greek was the Greek spoken in Athens. It has been a while and forgot that distinction and confused the two.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 2:32 a.m. CST

    mynameisnobody, you STILL don't knowwhat the fuck you're talking

    by Mister Pink

    You're spouting a bunch of Christian apologetic attempts to reconcile the contradictions but your argument has no support and it still does not explain why John places the Passover on friday while the synoptics place it on thursday (John was written in Syria, btw, about 100 CE. It was not written by the apostle). You're not seriously contending that the Bible is inerrant, are you? If so, you're even further gone than I thought. How did Judas die? What were Jesus' last words on the cross? Who was Joseph's father? How many of each animal did Noah take on the ark? Luke says that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius, yet Quirinius' census did not take place until 7 CE....eleven years after the death of Herod. Jesus could not have been born during the reign of Herod and during the census of Quirinius, simultaneously. What gives? (and no, Quirinius was NOT governor twice. I'm aware of the fundamentalist response to this question. We KNOW who the governor of Syria was in 4 BCE. It wasn't Quirinius). You need to give it up dude, seriously, all you're doing is flaunting your ignorance and spouting crap that you probably learned at some pound-me-in-the-ass fundie Bible camp somewhere. You're not fooling abyone. You're a fat 16-year old virgin. Just admit it.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 2:40 a.m. CST


    by Mister Pink

    I've read a number of theologians. I had to in college. Notably I read Augustine, Aquinas and some amateurs like CS Lewis. Paul Tillech is interesting but he's not very traditional. I also quite enjoy John Shelby Spong. My problem with Christian theology is specifically the soteriological aspect of it. That is, the idea that God would require a blood sacrifice to atone for sins, that Jesus' death redeems anybody else, that there is any virtue in belief, that there is any sin in non-belief, that eternal hell is rational or that a benevolent God would create it. This is a partial list of problems I have with Christian theology but I like the teachings of Jesus himself. I like the parables and the sermon on the mount, for instance, I even like some of what Paul said. I think most Christians miss the boat by mystifying (and frankly eroticizing) an act of murder, though.Jesus didn't give a shit what anyone believed. it was how you treated other people. Period.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 2:56 a.m. CST

    For fuck's sake, nobody

    by Mister Pink

    You didn't explain anything. You parakeeted a lame apologetic that isn't accepted or supported by any serious scholar. You're WRONG, son. You are not educated about what you're attempting to talk about. Just because you found something on a fundamentalist website does not mean that you have actually found a legitimate answer to anything. How do you reconcile the fact that the Passover is put on different days, dude? How about any of the other questions I asked you? Do you seriously think that the Bible is inerrant? Does pi equal 3? The Bible says it does. Is the sky a solid dome? Does the sun revolve around the earth? Is the earth 6000 years old? Do you think there was really a worldwide flood? The Bible syas all of that. The gospels contradict, man. It's no big deal. The authors weren't going for factual accuracy, they were creating a mythology. Trying to reconcile the contradictions is impossible and will tie you in knots. It's the moral of the story that counts, not the historicity.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 4:17 a.m. CST


    by WATT

    There is a pissing contest I want to piss. I received my BA in BUSINESS from Notre Dame. Yes THAT Notre Dame. I minored in THEOLOGY. MAY 2001 I recieved my masters in HISTORY at UCLA. MisterPink you are wrong. Your rants above are dumb. FOOTNOTE: The Roman armor in 'PASSION OF THE CHRIST' is right.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 5:46 a.m. CST

    Mr. Pink

    by agnosticyesno


  • Jan. 22, 2004, 5:53 a.m. CST

    by agnosticyesno

    I mean the posting that you addressed to me not the subsequent ones

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 5:56 a.m. CST

    Mr. Pink again

    by agnosticyesno

    I meant the post addressed to me was the most objective one not your subsequent ones

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 8:32 a.m. CST

    bible contradictions, if you're interested... if not... go away

    by TheAquabatman

    This is some of my current understandings... but I often prove myself wrong. anyway.. just throwin it out there for those who care. There are some contradictions in this big Book, but not as many as some would think. Of course writers and translators are going to muck up some of the finer details but don't sweat the small stuff, hey. If this omnipotent deity we call God had the power to create the universe, koalas and Jessica Alba's lips then don't you think he could oversee and make sure that his written word and instruction booklet to mankind was not misconstrued entirely. The Mormon 'third' testament and the JW translations are clear examples of how man can warp his word if desired. CONTRADICTIONS... Was it a world-wide flood, that's what the bible says, it also says that Cain was banished from the earth - 'the earth' was the mesopotamian district that God was dealing with, not the whole planet. Cain was banished from the earth, went to the land of Nod and took a wife there, yes, there were other civilisations already existing when God created Adam and Eve. REad Genesis from this perspective, note the word THEM when he mentions creating men. God has been dealing with man directly for 6000 years. Adam, the first Adam, He says Jesus is the second Adam. Adam was the first mediator between man and God; Adam failed; he sinned; Jesus, the second Adam did not fail. He put up a mirror to our sinful nature. We saw the reflection... we didnt like it so we skinned, tortured and killed the guy. The guy had passion and by the looks of these talkbacks and the big words i don't understand within them, so do we.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 10:03 a.m. CST

    One last word about Greek.

    by FluffyUnbound

    Using Paul as an example of a Roman citizen employing Greek is kind of a non sequitur. Paul was a Hellenized Jew whose citizenship was a result of the Roman policy of co-opting talented upper class provincials by granting them citizenship. He was not a Quirite, or even a member of a related tribe from the Italian peninsula. His epistles were also written in Greek because they are largely addressed to other congregations in the Hellenistic cultural area. If you were sending a letter to Corinth, Greek was pretty much the way to go. But that does not end up proving that all Roman citizens employed Greek and never spoke Latin. You have to draw a distinction between provincial citizens and "true" Romans. That distinction eroded over time, but during the Julian dynasty it still obtained. Pilate would have unquestionably been a native Latin speaker. His pedagogue, probably a Greek slave, would have taught him Greek for the purposes of social polish and standing, but not for the purpose of asking someone to pass the salt at dinner, and not for the purpose of ordering his soldiers to flog someone. If the legionnaries depicted in the film are local auxiliaries, then yes, it is more likely that they would have spoken Greek to each other - but if they were members of a numbered legion they would probably have employed Latin or camp Latin. Does anyone know which legion was responsible for the Jerusalem area at that time? Since Vespasian's legions 40 years later were still composed of non-locals it seems unlikely that the forces on site in 33 AD would have been Syrian. The best thing Gibson could have done would have been to show all 3 languages being used by someone, somewhere in the film. But the fact that some characters speak Latin in some situations is not inherently wrong. I will grant you that the pronounciation of Ecce Homo is entirely off and does in fact reflect Mel's vulgate Mass bias. It's a moot point, since the gospels are not literal descriptions of events, anyway; once you do a film transcribing a gospel, you are taking historical liberties by definition. I think it's better to say that the film is the most faithful to the Christian traditions of the Nicaean period, and not faithful to "history" as such. // The theology of the crucifixion occupies a tough space in religious history. The tradition of the blood sacrifice is deeply rooted in the human psyche. The notion of paying a blood price may seem repulsive to us now, but it made direct and palpable sense to people living in societies dominated by an unscientific agriculture. The image of the slain and risen divine figure was not unique to Christianity, and would have seemed natural in a milieu where sympathetic magic was still believed in by the overwhelming majority. At the same time, the crucifixion occupies a space in transcendant theology, since over the centuries Christianity developed [or attempted to develop] into a vaguely Platonist schema with echoes of Buddhism and Manichaeanism: a view of the universe where the things of this world are mere illusions covering a transcendant reality where good and evil are locked in a dualistic battle, and where the divine figure must demonstrate his ultimate forgiveness by turning the ultimate cheek and allowing his earthly self to be destroyed. The two concepts of the crucifixion are not really compatible logically in the end, and as a result it's easy to poke holes in the pastiche of beliefs people hold about the two of them combined. But it can make for very interesting art, the way that all conglomerate beliefs can make for interesting art.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Agnostic, Fluffy, Watt and nobody....

    by Mister Pink

    Agnostic: I think an analysis of the sayings of Jesus (at least, those saying which are likely to be authentic, i.e. the parables, The Sermon on the Mount and other ethical teachings unpolluted by Christian soteriological interpolation) shows a core message that the spirit of the Law is more important than the letter of the Law. essentially he was teaching that compassion was more important than ritual purity and legalism. There was more to his message, like egalitarianism and I think a utopian streak but I believe his teachings were fundamentally ethical rather than theological. My conclusions would not be "theological" in the strict meaning of the word since that term refers only to the discussion of God, per se, but I admit that my opinions are interpretive.--------------------------FLUFFY: Great post. I agree with everything you said. I have no objective to Pilate speaking Latin (but I wish Gibson had used the correct pronunciations)but I think it would have been nice if he had imparted some sense of the Hellenization of the culture.--------------------------------------WATT: What am I wrong about?------------------------------------------NOBODY: You really are an inerrentist, aren't you? Wow. I won't torment you by asking you to regurgitate the tortured apologia for the contradictions in the Bible. I've heard them before and each "explanation" can be readily destroyed but It would be a waste of time for both of us.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Mr. Pink?

    by carbon14

    I'm a little confused - Your posting mentions that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. If that's true, then why was he on trial and convicted of blasphemy? During his trial he was asked this very question: Mathew 26:63 - 65 If ever one is confused about who Jesus was or why HE was considered dangerous - rely on the REACTIONS of those in power - in this case the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin. Or are you one of these people that relies more on "Q" documents than on written testimony? "Q" documents are inadmissible in court. You sound much like I did several years ago. I too was a product of an agenda driven secular humanist curriculum. One day I realized that I sounded like a textbook of the Jesus Seminar rather than one that has examined the Case for Jesus with an open mind. Being a fellow University Graduate let us be free-thinkers, not the brain child of intelligencia. I encourage you to challenge everything - including the agendas of the authors of the College level framers of curricula. Keeping in the mind REACTIONS from those in power, many things can be put into perspective - this includes university level education. Ones world view shapes the future - and if I want a future where man is reliant on government for its rights and privileges I cannot allow the young to be taught that there is a power greater than myself. I would not be able to control them. POWER and CONTROL my friend - this is the march of History. Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Some have seized on the redeeming power of Christ and tried to turn it to political gain. Thus we have inquisitions. These events have nothing to do with Christ - His message or His Passion. See you at the movies...

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 11:14 a.m. CST

    Mr. Pink?

    by carbon14

    I'm a little confused - Your posting mentions that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. If that's true, then why was he on trial and convicted of blasphemy? During his trial he was asked this very question: Mathew 26:63 - 65 If ever one is confused about who Jesus was or why HE was considered dangerous - rely on the REACTIONS of those in power - in this case the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin. Or are you one of these people that relies more on "Q" documents than on written testimony? "Q" documents are inadmissible in court. You sound much like I did several years ago. I too was a product of an agenda driven secular humanist curriculum. One day I realized that I sounded like a textbook of the Jesus Seminar rather than one that has examined the Case for Jesus with an open mind. Being a fellow University Graduate let us be free-thinkers, not the brain child of intelligencia. I encourage you to challenge everything - including the agendas of the authors of the College level framers of curricula. Keeping in the mind REACTIONS from those in power, many things can be put into perspective - this includes university level education. Ones world view shapes the future - and if I want a future where man is reliant on government for its rights and privileges I cannot allow the young to be taught that there is a power greater than myself. I would not be able to control them. POWER and CONTROL my friend - this is the march of History. Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Some have seized on the redeeming power of Christ and tried to turn it to political gain. Thus we have inquisitions. These events have nothing to do with Christ - His message or His Passion. See you at the movies...

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 11:22 a.m. CST


    by agnosticyesno

    Fluffy, I agree with Mr. Pink that your post is excellent. Except

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Mr. Pink

    by agnosticyesno

    Ok, I have no problem with that.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Carbon 14

    by Mister Pink

    It was not blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah. Claiming to be the Messiah was not a claim to divinity. The Sanhedrin would not have convicted Jesus of Blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah because it WASN'T blasphemy. I would contend that the trial before the Sanhedrin never occurred. There are a number of factual and procedural inaccuracies with the trial as described in the Gospels that make it highly likely to be fictional. The Sanhdrin could not hold trials on the sabbath or on high holy days yet the gospel have them holding court on the passover. They could only hold court during the daytime yet the gospels have them doing it at night. they could only hold court at the temple yet the gospels have them holding it at the house of the high priest. A period of 24 hours was required between the conclusion of a trial and the issuance of a verdict yet the gospels have an immediate verdict and sentence of death. these were all strict religious laws and it's impossible that the sanhedrin could have conducted themselves in such a manner. Even if they had wanted to do such a thing the illegitimacy of the proceeding would have invalidated the verdict. The fact that the Sanhedrin convicted Jesus of something that was not a crime under Jewish law pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for the trial as having any historical authenticity. Oh....and it also wasn't blasphemy to say you were "the son of man" or the "son of God."Son of Man" in Hebrew/Aramaic idiom was a generic phrase for all human beings. Daniel said that the Messiah would be one "like the son of man" (or son of Adam, to be exact) meaning that the Messiah would be a human being. Nt authors mistook the phrase as titular and applied it thusly to Jesus. Jesus probably used the phrase himself but his intent was utterly misunderstood by those who wrote the gospels. (For instance, Jesus said the "son of man" had the authority to forgive, meaning that humans had the right to forgive each other. They didn't have to wait for God to do it. it didn't mean that Jesus was arrogating such an authority for himself). "Son of God" was also not a claim to divinity. It was a figure of speech for prophets, for "righteous" men, and occasionaly for humans in general.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 12:51 p.m. CST

    so, mel gibson goes to church, previews his movie to 4000 priest

    by Bourne GreyElf

    Because Gibson knows how many brainwashed christian clones there are, and now all 4000 of those "priests" are going to promote this offensive "art" all over the place. Well done MEL, that was the best marketing I have ever seen of a movie. Drain even more money from the public in the name of "GOD".

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 12:54 p.m. CST

    trial never occured

    by carbon14

    If the trial never occured - as is your contention - then Jesus was never crucified. Christ was asked:" Mathew 26:63 "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, The Son of God." Christ responded:" Yes it is as you say..." Mathew 26:64 "He has spoken blasphemy!" Mathew 26:65 What was the High Preist refering to when he said this? Dialogue dictates that it is in response to the inquiry. If your contention is that this exchange never occured, then this is revisionism. You cannot exclude testimony that does not fit our agenda. What was Christ crucified for if not after a conviction? Clearly a trial occured. Under the Secular Humanist education system - revisionism is a necessity. "Under the guise of free-thought one has closed the mind."

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Mr. Pink

    by carbon14

    I refer to an earlier point - but you wrote in your post: "He never said he was the Messiah and he definitely never said he was God..." This is what you wrote. Do you still stand with this contention? To which I asked you: "If that's true, then why was he on trial and convicted of blasphemy?" And I cited: Mathew 26:63-65 Where Jesus was asked: "Tell us if you are the Christ(the messiah), the Son of God." To which he replied: "It is as you say..." Going back to your earlier contention: "He never said he was the Messiah and he definitely never said he was God..." Clearly he SAID it and DEFINITELY claimed to be God (otherwise it would not be blasphemy.) The ONLY way for your contention to get around this testimony is to say the exchange never took place. Which you did in your post: "I would contend that the trial before the Sanhedrin never occurred." If your only retort to my contention is to eliminate documented testimony then you are using revisionism. And if you are using revisionism, then you cannot claim: "He never said he was the Messiah and he definitely never said he was God..." stated as fact,as your retort. Further - as a messianic Jew I find it interesting that you claim: "The "suffering servant" in that passage is a personification of Israel. It's not a Messianic prophesy. It's not even an accurate translation (it says "bruises," not "stripes.)" As a Jew that grew up in a household which valued the readings of our prophets, it was "ingrained" very early on that the "suffering servent" prophesy refered to our coming messiah. Not to us as a people. Its intersting that you would make such a claim. Our home, family and synagogue have NEVER interpreted this passage to refer to anything BUT our coming messiah. I value your input to this discussion board - but it became clear VERY early that your statements are the result of Liberal Scholarship intent on revisionist history. Your knowledge is extensive - but if you rely on the Jesus Seminarians for the foundation of your world view - you have become a product - with opinions that are "exactly what they want you to be." I say again - "Under the guise of free-thought one has closed the mind."

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Carbon14 and LastGreyElf

    by FluffyUnbound

    Carbon14: the fact that Jesus was crucified is not evidence that he was tried before the Sanhedrin, nor is it evidence that his crime was blasphemy - or, specifically, claiming to be God. Perhaps the Romans tried him, or perhaps there was no trial at all and he was simply summarily executed by the Romans. As for his crime, his behavior in the Temple, if accurately described, was more than enough for the Romans to crucify him as a dangerous disturber of the peace and potential revolutionary. And the Romans were nothing if not ruthless with potential revolutionaries in the provinces, if those individuals happened to not be members of favored or protected classes. Or, perhaps his crime was that he healed on the Sabbath. There are any number of possibilities. Since the gospels are emphatically NOT eyewitness accounts, but are all second-hand, the issues Pink has raised about the nature of Sanhedrin trials and how they contradict the gospel accounts would seem to indicate that a Sanhedrin trial is unlikely, and one of these other options was probably the case. // LastGreyElf: we have some people complaining that Gibson is subjecting non-Christians to religious propaganda, and wishing that he would just keep his religion to himself and his co-religionists. But now we have you complaining that he is showing the movie to people who share at least part of his religious conviction, even if they may be members of competing sects. So it seems Gibson can't win with you people. If he shares the film across faiths, he's a propagandist who doesn't respect the faith of others. If he shares the film with people of his own faith, he's hiding something and exploiting religion for profit. That doesn't strike me as very fair.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 2:21 p.m. CST


    by carbon14

    A couple of points to consider: You have stated: "Since the gospels are emphatically NOT eyewitness accounts" I would refer you to: Luk 1:2 "Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;" or to Peter who wrote: 2Pe 1:16 "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty." If we are discussing the text - let us keep it in the frame of the text and illiminate conjecture. You stated further: "Perhaps the Romans tried him, or perhaps there was no trial at all and he was simply summarily executed by the Romans" As Christ hung on the cross his sentance was hung over his head in the languages of the day: Mat 27:37 "And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS." This was the charge against him for which he was convicted. Claiming to be King of the Jews. The Messiah. This was what offended the Pharisees the Sanhedrin and why he was convicted. The placard above his head was ordered placed there by Pilate himself who when confront by the Pharasees responded: Jhn 19:22 "Pilate answered, What I have written I have written." Some excellent questions but conjecture.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 2:39 p.m. CST


    by FluffyUnbound

    None of the titular authors of the gospels were contemporaries of Jesus. By definition, these man cannot have been eyewitnesses. When you write down what someone else who claims to have been a witness says, this is known as reporting something second-hand. When you write down something that someone claims to have heard from an eyewitness, that is third-hand. When I called the gospels second-hand I was putting them in the best possible light, since third-hand has to be assumed to be more likely until we find evidence that the gospels were written prior to 90AD [which would pretty much be the limit in terms of finding an actual eyewitness, in practical terms]. And if we are willing to doubt that the account of the Sanhedrin trial is true, based on pretty sound technical objections, that would tend to throw the entire document's authenticity in these matters into question - so you can't reinforce the claim of a questioned document by referring to a later part of the same document. But let's say that the placard at the top of the cross did in fact say what the Matthew indicates it said. Since Jesus went out of his way to enter Jerusalem on an ass, and then went to cause trouble in the temple, any Roman investigating the disturbance with a half-way decent knowledge of jewish writings about the Messiah would look at Jesus' behavior and say, "Blimey, we've got another one of these damn hayseed rabble-rousers trying to show how he's fulfilling prophecy again. Call the lumber yard." Judaism really wasn't that exotic to the Romans. They had been dealing with the Messiah of the Week in Palestine and at the Alexandrine colony for decades. After crucifying a messiah a week for a while, some soldier might have decided to be funny. Our soldiers paint little signs on bombs; something similar could have happened here.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 3:02 p.m. CST


    by carbon14

    Validity of the gospels is another discussion all together. This began from the content of the gospels being called into question and erroneous statements made by mr. pink as to what they contain. If the text of the gospels is the discussion - let us keep it limited to that. Liberal scholarship cannot defeat the content of the gospels - it has withstood 2000 years of that battle - the newest tactic of intelligencia is to question its validity through revisionist history - a point I've made several times that doesn't seem to be getting through. An interesting point to consider: "They had been dealing with the Messiah of the Week in Palestine and at the Alexandrine colony for decades. After crucifying a messiah a week for a while, some soldier might have decided to be funny" I had to laugh out loud to this - thanks for the giggle. Many claims come and go - the claims of Christ are a little different however.Mat 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations;" Thats a pretty BOLD statement from an sandal footed desert preacher. It would be dismissed as the "messiah of the week" if it were'nt so true in the world today.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Carbon 14, Messianic Jews are not Jews, they're Christians

    by Mister Pink

    Save your horsehit about your "synagogue" for some other moron. Messianic Judaism is not accepted as legitimate by any school of Judaism. It's rejected by Orthodox, conservative and Reform Jews alike. Messianic Jews are not recognized as Jews by Israel under the Right of Return, You're not Jewish (at least not religiously so), you're just a fucking Christian. You are flat wrong about how Jews interpret Isaiah. You show exceeding ignorance simply by mouthing a belief that the Jewish Messiah is God. Ask a real Rabbi about Isaiah...a JEWISH Rabbi that is, not some fake "Jew for Jesus." The answer to your question about Jesus' execution is that he was probably summarily executed by the Romans after the disturbance at the Temple. Such episodes were punished especially ruthlessly during Passover because Jerusalem was so crowded at those times and the greatly outnumbered Romans feared a riot. The exchange you keep citing from Matthew is one in which a judge askes Jesus if he is the Messiah (Christ means "Messiah") and Jesus says yes. The thing that you can't seem to get through your skull is that IT WAS NOT AGAINST JEWISH LAW TO SAY YOU WERE THE MESSIAH. It was not a claim to divinity. It was not blasphemous. So why did Matthew have the Sanhedrin convict Jesus of a "crime" which was NOT a crime under Jewish law? Wyhy does Matthew get it so wrong on the procedural details? The only answer is that the account is fiction. Don't forget that this stuff was written 40-50 years after the crucifixion by people who weren't there, never met Jesus and had no access to any factual documentation. They were also people who had political reasons not to piss off the Romans and who needed to shift the blame for the crucifixion. it's possible that someone from the Temple (and the high priests were hand picked by the Romans and were regarded as collaborators by the Jewish populace) may have helped with the arrest of Jesus but it was the Romans who killed him. Period. He had committed no crime under Jewish law (he had NOT committed blasphemy) and even if the sanhedrin had wanted to kill him they could have done it themselves. They didn't need the Romans. They could have stoned him. The Romans didn't give a shit about interneccine Jewish religious squabbles. Crucifixion was purely a Roman method of execution which was forbidden under Jewish law. It would have been a greater violation of Jewish law than "blasphemy" for the Sanhedrin to turn Jesus over to the Romans for crucifixion. You're charges of "revisionism" are misplaced. It's called "criticism." It's an objective analysis of the texts. The Gospels are highy mythologized religious and liturgical texts. They are not factual histories.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Bladerunnerunit is right...

    by Mister Pink

    ...that a claim to Messiaship would have been a more provocative statement to the Romans than to the sanhedrin. Essentially it would have been a claim to the throne of Israel and a challenge to Roman authority. The Jewish exoectation of the Annointed One was simply an heir to the throne of David who would restore the united kindom of Israel. He was not supposed to be God nor was he suppose to a redeemer of sins. He was purely a military and political figure. False Messiahs were commonplace at the time, some of them tried to start revolts and the Romans executed them all the time.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 4:58 p.m. CST


    by carbon14

    Please answer a question put to you: In the Mathew exchange: Mathew 26:63-65 - "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, It is as you say. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death." You said to me:"The thing that you can't seem to get through your skull is that IT WAS NOT AGAINST JEWISH LAW TO SAY YOU WERE THE MESSIAH. It was not a claim to divinity. It was not blasphemous." Your last line - If "it was NOT BLASPHEMOUS" as you say - What was the High Preist refering to? I realise that you dont want this exchange to have occured but for the sake of discussion - what did the High Preist mean? By the way I was raised orthodox and came to Canada in 1980 after converting. I know very well what my scriptures taught in ORTHODOX SYNAGOGUE growing up. I had to leave Israel from the same hostility I have encountered from you. You stated the folling Mr. Pink: "It's an objective analysis of the texts." Here are some exmples of your objective analysis: "Why can't these Christians get it through their heads that their gay porn fantasy is not important to anyone but them?""mynameisnobody, you don't know what you're talking about. Shut the fuck up.""The MESSAGE of the movie (worship Jesus or burn)""You on the other hand sound like a high school kid.""mynameisnobody, you STILL don't knowwhat the fuck you're talking about" And this: "Jesus didn't give a shit what anyone believed. it was how you treated other people. Period." Perhaps you should take a lesson from yourself.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 5:01 p.m. CST

    The Pharisees incited the crowd against Jesus

    by Psalmolive

    The Jews put the pressure on the Roman governor Pilate. They accused Jesus of being a rabblerouser. The romans had to keep the peace. So Pilate symbolically washed his hands of the matter and gave Jesus to the Jewish citizens and set let them decide who will be freed. They had to choose between Barrabas and Jesus. The Pharisees incited the crowd against Jesus. The first Christians were Jews. Jesus never claimed to be the son of god, he said he was "the son of man". We are all sons of man, and god- if you believe in god.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 5:20 p.m. CST


    by Mister Pink

    I don't know why you keep asking the same question over and over again. I've already answered it. The exchange never occurred. Matthew's intent is not exatly knowable but he was a Christian. He was trying to shift blame for the crucifixion away from the Romans and onto the Jews. You also have too understand that nothing in Jesus' words is a claim to divinity. Neither claiming to be the "Christ" (Messiah) or the "Son of God" were divine claims. Neither was blasphemy under Jewish law. You say you were raised Orthodox so you should know that. The trial could not have taken place as Matthew describes.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 5:22 p.m. CST


    by Danger Mouse

    I also would like to thank Agnosticyesno for some interesting and informative posts. I am not a theologan or a linguist so I make no judgement about who is right or wrong but Mynameisnobody certainly has the arrogance, selfrightousness, hypocracy and condesending attitude of a fundamentalist... Here's an easy to check fact...The leather lorica segmentata that the soldiers are wearing has NO basis in fact(it probably goes backno further than the original Ben Hur film but maybe as far back as Victorian theatre). It is based on a poor reconstruction of armour seen in Hadrian's column and even that is evidence for much later than Christ's time. The armour they should be wearing is easy to varify (the Roman's were VERY good at recording military equipment lists). It should be MAIL with more mail as a shoulder re-enforce. Pretty easy stuff to check on. Mynameisnobody may think I'm wrong but in doing so he is going against all recognised authorities on the subject. They used the wrong armour simply because they could get their hands on it; there is tones of it in film and theatre warehouses all over the world. Now, don't get me started on the textiles used in the film...

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 6:05 p.m. CST

    Bladerunner unit thanks

    by Danger Mouse

    Thanks for that (cool name too! Blade Runner, what a film!!!). I just want to say that by nitpicking historical details I'm only having a go at those who say the film is as accurate as could have been made. I am not dissing the film as a film (I havn't even seen it) or it's power as cinema and I am certainly not making a judgement on the historicity of Christ. It's just that it would be nice for hollywood to pay as much attention to details (such as armour and costume)with earlier period films as they do with more recent historic films (Saving Privat Ryan, Civil War movies etc.) From what I have seen Stone's Alexander film seems to be making a big effort to be accurate! Hope it's a good film to match. This new King Arthur film (again, dispite claims of accuracy) looks like complete rubbish (King Arthur was Russian??? What a load of crap) At what point does historical inaccuracy in film (Patriot, U571 etc) become outright lies...

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 6:12 p.m. CST


    by invisible

    Reading back through the posts - I think you've asked some good questions. If we're talking about Lord of the Rings - and someone says "Hobbits never lived in the Shire." Then you show them in the book where it says Hobbits DID lived in the Shire. How can one deny it - except to say - Well Tolkien never wrote that book. Good questions carbon

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 6:30 p.m. CST

    good point about Excalibur

    by Danger Mouse

    I love Excalibur it's one of my all time favourite films; yet it has no relation to the "historical" Arthur (if there was one). It was clearly the "legend" of King Arthur (from the high/late middle ages) and made no claims of accuracy. How can Arthur be Russian when Russia didn't exist until several centuries later. I think this (The Passion) will be a great film but it is clearly Mel's vision. That's fine...I have no problem with that; but to claim it's, as accurate as anyone could have made, is just plain wrong. Maybe you can say it's as accurate as Mel could (or would) have made...

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 7:33 p.m. CST

    hi fluffy

    by Bourne GreyElf

    all I'm saying is, it just seems like another money grubbing type of marketing, and its very cleverly disguised. I haven't read many other posts on this subject, its a bit too long/much. so If I'm just repeating something mr. pink already said, I apologize for the redundency. anyway, have a nice day everyone. todays my birthday, I turn 23, I'm going to a strip club later.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 7:52 p.m. CST

    Speaking of historical inaccuracies....

    by Mister Pink

    The reviewers haven't mentioned it on this site but Gibson portrays Herod as a lecherous homosexual with a young boytoy. Herod Antipas was many things, including a womanizer, but he was NOT a homosexual. Gibson is portraying herod as such simply to make him look more "evil." In Gibson's homophobic mind, homosexuality is wicked in and of itself and depicting Herod as a fruit gives the the audience an extra reason to boo and hiss. He's playing on the inherent bigotry of his target audience. I'm surprised that none of the reviewrs have mentioned this outrage in their reviews but they probably just didn't know it was bad history and a gratuitous slur.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 8:03 p.m. CST

    That's ok Mr. Pink

    by Danger Mouse

    I don't know anything about the real Herod but I'm not surprised if you are right...After all Mel has played a privileged, slave owning rebellious landowner who changed sides because he saw he might lose his privileged lifestyle (because Britain was banning slavery) as a hero (maybe not his fault) and a self serving warlord who used to build gallows next to his recruiting stands (get the point?) as the greatest hero of Scotland (definitely his fault), while slandering its real hero, the Bruce...

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 8:28 p.m. CST


    by Danger Mouse

    Actualy after a quick and superficial look you seem to be correct Mr. Pink. Catholic research (which should certainly have been available to Mel) certainly seems to show him as a womaniser but I saw nothing that would even begin to suggest he was gay. I did enjoy the old JC Superstar movie version though. Maybe this is where Mel got this bit of research from. I will stand corrected if someone has REAL evidence to say he was and I will look in to it more deeply myself.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Mister pink im sick of ur fucking shit

    by allanon1985

    How the fuck do you know Herod wasnt gay? Where you fucking there? he might be gay he might not be. This is all speculation. O and by the way ur fucking website you preached about, the Bible Unearthed. Its sponsored by a fucking community college. LOL. Hmmm maybe because the ideas in it about David and Solomon never existing just wasn't realistic enough to be sponsoredby a real fucking university. Community college, rofl! You can spout about those "facts" all u want but coming from a community college sponsored website, lol. Ive made up my mind. While some of your rants hold some truth most of them are just to take a quick slash at the christian religion. What were u fucked in the ass as a choir boy? Is this the source of your antipathy toward the Christian religion. Im dying to know. Can't wait for your reply i got a lot more u fucking piece of shit. Its pretty easy to talk shit on a msg board, lol. Community college, its killing me. AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA! -Liberate Tutame Ex Inferris

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Advanced blurb from Harry's review

    by pablo2004

    "my 3 year old nephew got stigmata when he saw it!"

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 8:58 p.m. CST

    allanon is back

    by Mister Pink

    There is nothing in all the historical documetation about him to suggest he was gay...and it wasn't because anybody was trying to be nice. They had no problem trashing the guy but they never accused him of homosexuality. Really, your question is completely asinine. How do you know that Herod wasn't a Martian? How do you know that Jesus wasn't gay? The Bible doesn't say he was straight. Gibson invented a new slur against Herod for completely gratuitous reasons. The website was just a place to introduce you to the findings of current Israeli archaeology. One of the authors of the book is the head of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University in Israel. It is absolutely THE cutting edge academic department on Israeli archaeology. This stuff is old hat in Israel, it just doesn't get a lot of media attention. The current debate is betweem "minimalists" and "mythicists." they now argue only about whether David and solomon were entirely fictional or whether theory myths were dreived from some authentic folk heros. No one seriously tries to argue for stuff like the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan or the United kingdom any more. the archaeological evidence has destroyed those stories as having historical authenticity.

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 8:59 p.m. CST

    can I buy

    by pablo2004

    a big bag of eucharists from the concession counter when I see the movie? Will they charge their usual ungodly prices for snacks?

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 9:27 p.m. CST

    mr pink

    by allanon1985

    We seem to have two conflicting views. I beleive I'm right and you believe your right. While your "bible"(lol couldnt resist) was put together by two Archaelogists mine was compiled from the the findings of Archaelogists too. As well as historians, anthropologists, linguists, geographers, art historians, scientists, and other specialists. Hmm I think my book sounds more authoritative, but thats just me. David in fact was a renegade outlawed by Saul who went over to the side of the Philistines. When Saul saw what he was facing he took his own life on his sword and thus David became King of the Israelites, as the Hebrews of the United Kingdom(not britain stupid)became known thereafter until the breakup after Solomons death. Solomon was not the wise ruler as portrayed in the Bible. He was a ruthless leader who ruled through intense power and ruthless taxation. But since they never existed i guess this evidence was just made out of thin air, fiction if u will. However, there is archaelogical evidence here as well as evidence from other sources that sadly your text is lacking. The problem with most atheists(not all, but definetly you Mr. Pink.) is that because you have nothing to believe in you think its your duty to "convert" other people to your side. I always love when atheists go show me evidence instead of stories. While there is evidence all around there is nothing "substantial"(i use the word lightly) to prove in your view that anyone is "up there". You dont think that the billions of people that have a religion dont know this. Its called Faith. The Faith to believe in something that isnt tangible. That is what seperates the believers from the non-believers. Through thick and thin believers have Faith in what they don't see. Non-believers(atheists) dont have Faith and thus hate those that do because they cant understand how to love something that you cant see. Faith is the reason that people are "fucking morons" for believing in something you cant see. It must be pretty shitty to not believe in anything. Maybe on your deathbed you will come to terms on how you wasted your life beliving in nothing. If only you had kept the faith. "If you keep bragging about something you did yesterday it means you havent done anything today."

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Mr. Pink Blade and Carbon

    by agnosticyesno

    Mr. Pink

  • Jan. 22, 2004, 10:42 p.m. CST

    great stuff

    by Danger Mouse

    Another great post Agnosticyesno! I love your open minded well concidered opinions. I may not agree with absolutly everything you have said (actualy I think I probably do) but they certainly seem to be honest, well researched and balanced.

  • Jan. 23, 2004, 1:48 a.m. CST

    The Passion of the Christ

    by Spy_Alyssa

    I, for one, was blown away by the first trailer I saw last Summer. That trailer alone nearly had me in tears. I am a Christian, was raised Agnostic and came to the Lord only a few years ago. I can't wait to see this film because I have rarely heard people talk about the torture that Jesus went through. Yes, we talk about how he "died for us" and "was nailed to a cross," but it wasn't until one Easter that I started to really understand just how much Jesus went through for us. He was beaten, forced to carry his own cross, bear that weight upon his back before being nailed to it and dying on it. He was taunted and wore a crown of thorns. I really want to see this film. I'm not the type of person who is into violence at all. The sight of blood makes me queasy, but I want to experience this film not because it looks like a cool movie but because it's said to be an accurate telling of the Bible, and I hope to learn from it. I see this movie as a reminder of all that Jesus went through for me and for my sins. It should have been me up on that cross, but it was Jesus. I still remember the realization that hit me when I heard of all that Jesus went through. For me, seeing this movie is another reminder of what Jesus did for me. I know it's an actor up there and not Jesus, but when I look at that cross I can remember Jesus and what he went through for me.

  • Jan. 23, 2004, 3:14 a.m. CST

    I'm sure I read somewhere that the form of catholicism that Mr G

    by paranoid-bunny

    so what's the big deal about getting the Pope's backing?

  • Jan. 23, 2004, 3:15 a.m. CST

    MR. PINK

    by Bourne GreyElf

    fuck these asshats, trying to gang up on you. don't back down an inch, lay the fucking smack down. say what you gotta fucking say and don't let anyone tell you you can't. LOTR for ever!

  • Jan. 23, 2004, 5:31 a.m. CST

    do we really need more religion right now?

    by exjesusfreak

    I'm interested in seeing this movie, but I think the last thing this country (USA) needs is a jesus movie. Over half the population lets their respective Christian religious leader decide their vote on election day, so do we really need a movie that will just up the religious zeal before an election year? Please, no more Jesus Freaks!

  • Jan. 23, 2004, 9:57 a.m. CST

    The summation of pretty much every argument in this TalkBack...

    by Snowed In

    "My viewpoint is right, yours is wrong, and no matter what evidence to the contrary I see or hear, I'm not going to change my mind. I am going to change yours, though, so everyone who disagrees with me, shut up or bow down to my superior debating skills."

  • Jan. 23, 2004, 9:59 a.m. CST

    sick of the pseudo-science rhetoric

    by polycarp's folly

    OK. I was not sure that I was going to go into the fray. For one thing, it is almost impossible to win a debate of this nature. You never actually convert anyone. Also, no one is actually interested in keeping an open mind. Rather, battle lines have been drawn and everyone on this whole freakin' message board is pragmatically holding to their position like they have been super-glued to their dogmatism. This goes for atheists as well as christians. This whole discussion is going to prove to be pointless. Why? Because both sides are playing pseudo-science with their prospective roles. Both sides are using ad-hoc arguments to immunize claims from falsification. Both sides are also concentrating on confirmation, rather than refutation, and are relying on a reverse burden of proof. I can collect vast amounts of evidence on any position in order to prove what I believe. That takes absolutely no skill. For Example: FROM: THE WASHINGTON TIMES JAN 22, 2004 Study: Red Sea parting was possible ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Jan. 21 (UPI) -- Russian mathematicians have determined the legendary parting of the Red Sea that let the Jews flee Egypt was possible, the Moscow Times reported. The study, published in the Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, focused on a reef that runs from the documented spot where the Jews escaped Egypt, which in Biblical times, was much closer to the surface, according to Naum Volzinger, a senior researcher at St. Petersburg's Institute of Oceanology, and a colleague based in Hamburg, Alexei Androsov. The mathematicians calculated the "strong east wind that blew all that night" mentioned in the Bible needed to blow at a speed of 67 miles per hour to make the reef, said Volzinger, who specializes in ocean phenomena, flooding and tidal waves. "It would take the Jews -- there were 600,000 of them -- four hours to cross the 4.2-mile reef that runs from one coast to another. Then, in half an hour, the waters would come back," he said. The Egyptian army that followed them drowned in the sea. 1994 when archaeologists discovered a stone inscription at the ancient city of Dan, which refers to the "House of David." The House of David Inscription (Tel Dan Inscription) is important because it's the first ancient reference to King David outside the Bible. Specifically, the stone is a victory pillar of a King in Damascus dated about 250 years after David's reign, which mentions a "king of Israel" (probably Joram, son of Ahab) and a king of the "House of David" (probably Ahaziah of Judah). Another important find is the House of Yahweh Ostracon, which is a pottery shard dated to about 800 BC that contains a written receipt for a donation of silver shekels to Solomon's Temple. Written approximately 130 years after the completion of the Temple, this appears to be the earliest mention of Solomon's Temple outside the Bible In February and March of 1967, H. J. Franken was conducting excavations at Deir

  • Jan. 23, 2004, 12:38 p.m. CST

    A response to Polycarp's Folly

    by Mister Pink

    1.) The hypothesis regarding the Red sea is cute but it's hampered by the fact that the OT DOESN'T SAY it was the Red Sea, it says it was the REED Sea and it was mistranslated into Engish. So wind phenomena vis-a-vis the Red sea are irrelevant. Furthermore (and more importantly) there was no enslavement of Israelites in Egypt, nor was there an "Exodus." The archaeological evidence in Israel shows that the Isrealites were an indigeonous and continuous population in Palestine. That they never left, there was never any migration of Israelites in from the desert. There is not a trace of archaeolgical evidence for all those thousands of Israelites ever being present in the desert and there was no conquest of Canaan as described in the OT. 2.) The Tel Dan inscription is greatly deabated as to whether it actually says "House of David." It actually says "BWTDWD" all as one word as opposed to two words, "BWT DWD" ("House of David"). Scholars are divide over the meaning of BWTDWD and many of them think it refers to a place name. In any case, the existence of a Historical David is not excluded by archaeology. What IS excluded is the possibility that Judah ever controlled the North. At the time of David's alleged kingdom, the northern Kingdom was wealthy, thriving and powerful while Jerusalem was little more than a large village with a local chieftain. David 9and the ensuing identification of his lineage as the "House of David") may have had some authenticity as folk hero and tribal leader but he was in no way the King of all Palestine. 3.) The "house of Yahweh" receipt refers to a temple but does not refer specifically to Solomon and does not prove that he was a real person. It proves, at most, that Jerusalem had a First Temple but that's hardly surprising. The kind of stuff you're citing here is intriguing in its own way (well not the Red sea thing) but really it's no more significant or validating to the Bible than Schliemann's discovery of Troy validates the historical truth of the Iliad. Sure, some of the OT is rooted in historical kernels of truth but those kernels do not come close to confirming any of the supernatural aspects of the OT and they have NOTHING to do with the NT.

  • Jan. 23, 2004, 1:17 p.m. CST

    mr pink ur website book website sucks

    by allanon1985

    only have to say three words from now on, and then laugh: Community College sponsored! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.......AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...........AHAHAHAHHAHAHHA!

  • Jan. 23, 2004, 2:13 p.m. CST

    Reply to BladeRunnerUnit

    by Spy_Alyssa

    Trust me, I know that to believe in Christ and follow Christ one must rely on much more than emotion. How else would we make it through the times when we feel nothing in worship or don't feel God's presence? And how do you know how I came to Jesus? Forgive me, but you don't. I said that it was an Easter service that helped me better understand Jesus' suffering, but I had been a Christian for over a year then. I had just never had anyone explain Jesus' suffering in such a graphic form. In so many services it has been toned down, and that was the first time I heard it without someone holding back. I read my Bible and agree with what I have learned. I do my best, but I am frail and human and sinful, and so I must rely on Jesus for strength because only He is Holy. I believe with all my heart, all my mind, and all my soul that Jesus Christ lived, and that He died for my sins and that through Jesus' sufferings I was freed. I am not perfect, no, but I am forgiven and I do believe. I want to see this film because I hope it'll deepen my understanding of Jesus' sufferings, just as that one Easter service opened my eyes even more than they had been before. What Jesus did for me up on that cross is truly amazing and humbling. God came down to Earth and was nailed upon a cross so that I might have life. Faith is about so much more than emotion, and trust me, I know that. But I believe anyways, no matter what I'm feeling or even if I'm feeling nothing at all. I believe.

  • Jan. 23, 2004, 2:38 p.m. CST

    Herod and homosexuality

    by FluffyUnbound

    I may be confusing my Herods, here, but wasn't there salacious court gossip in Rome about Herod and Caligula? Sort of like the Julius Caesar smear? Although I would assume that there is a difference between buggering to earn a kingship, and undertaking to do the same for idle entertainment.

  • Jan. 23, 2004, 2:52 p.m. CST

    allanon, you illiterate fucktard...

    by Mister Pink

    The website simply TALKS about the book. No community college had anything to do with the reasearch or authorship of the book. Your ridicule just makes you look stupid. Why don't you actually try some research on current Israeli archaeology.

  • Jan. 23, 2004, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Fluffy...that's a different Herod.

    by Mister Pink

    You're thinking of Herod Agrippa who was a close friend of Caligula, the nephew of Herod Antipas and the grandson of Herod the Great (the Bethelehem baby killer). Antipas was the son of Herod the Great and the Tetrarch of Galilee during the life and execution of Jesus. Agrippa was later made King of the Jews by Caligula but not until 37 AD. It's confusing. there's a lot of Herods. Herod the Great had fifteen kids by ten different marriages and his Kindom was forever getting split up and parcelled out after his death so it's easy to forget which Herod controlled what when.

  • Jan. 23, 2004, 6:12 p.m. CST

    The problem with Liberal Scholarship

    by invisible

    Someone on this post has mentioned that liberal scholarship is supported by facts, and that we know more in the last hundred years than we have in the last 2000 about Judea. Being students of liberal scholarship it is not surprising that this is your opinion. Beginning with Herman Samuel Reimarus, David Fredrich Strauss,H.J. Holzmann, Alfred Loisy, Albert Schweitzer; these are the fathers of the modern day Historical Jesus movement, under the current heads of Dominic Crossan and the rest of the Jesus Seminarians. These are the men that are responsible for the current thinking about first century palestine, and I suspect the original sources for much of the information being posted here. While they are learned men, the problem is this: They entered an investigation with a precept rather than a question. A "precept" is an immediate tarnish to any SERIOUS Scholarly investigation. As it is in law enforcement and scientific research. The precept makes any discovery basically rhetorical. These "scholars" went into the investigation of the claims of Christ with the intent of proving it false. Many of them were disgruntled with Christianity and the "limits" it placed on thier lives, so the INTENT was to call into question everything that made Jesus Christ divine. In studying Jewish history it is indeed true that the Jewish people were not EXPECTING a divine Messiah. This is true. Based in what historical Hebrews were EXPECTING liberal scholars took that as the basis to investigate the claims of jesus Christ. Therefore they chose to take the gospels and indeed the whole New Testament, and go through it page by page and illiminate ANY reference to divinity as being inaccurate to Jewish EXPECTATIONS. With "filtered" text in hand they proceeded to study Jesus Christ, the gospels and the New Testament, and HAVE TO CONCLUDE based on the PRECEPT that anything mentioning divinity MUST have been added later. The problem with this is that what one EXPECTS often has no basis in reality. The Jews of that time were EXPECTING a liberator, one from the house of DAVID, a warrior to free them from Roman rule. What they got was a carpenter from nazareth telling them to love the romans and submit to them and serve God with an open heart. NOT what they wanted to hear. So the Jews of that day concluded this CANNOT be the messiah. This belief holds true to today in Isreal, who once again are expecting David to come and rescue them from the current crisis gripping the region. Returning to the precept, exclusion of documentation because it does not fit the intention is suspiciously UNscholarly, and this is what should be considered untrustworthy. That which is being investigated is incomplete. Since the Jews were not EXPECTING a divine messiah, does not mean He wasn't when He arrived, and to exclude data based on a supposition creates an unclear picture. I was not EXPECTING two planes to strike the WTC in 2001, but that does not mean it didn't happen. And as an example, 1900 years from now, those unhappy with the opinion of terrorists will set it upon themselves to investigate September 11th, BUT go into the investigation with the precept to illiminate any mention of terrorism as the motive. How could I possibly get an accurate portrait of what happened that day, and those involved if some liberal scholar 1900 years from now decides to exclude large portions of the data? A law enforcement officer enetring a crime investigation can have SUSPICIONS based on history, but he CANNOT go into the crime investiagtion with the intent to blame any single individual. This would limit his investigation and most likely limit his ability to reconstruct events. Liberal Scholarship, has limited its investigation into the claims of Christ by not considering the divine. They have said, that since its possible, but not probable it must be incorrect. This is a hindrance to the discovery. When discovery is hendered by exclusion of data BEFORE it is considered leaves room for only conjecture. And looking back through the posts indeed - I have read LOTS of: "perhaps" "maybe" "likely" "possibly" in answering hard questions. The liberal scholar and thier students are left with nothing BUT conjecture when confronted with the claims of the Gospels. Someone else mentioned that a taking a particular stand was pubecent and a sign of insecurity. It has been my experience in law enforcement that those who rant, rave, swear, and demand that others submit to thier world view are the ones who suffer with insecurities. Attacking an opponents intellect or them personally is the first SIGN in any dabate of those that are having personal difficulties. Going back to Herman Samuel Reimarus, unhappiness is the motivator to bully others into ones thinking.