Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day is accomplished!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with today’s Behind the Scenes Pic!

Today’s shot shows director Martin Scorsese working with Willem Dafoe and Harvey Keitel during the filming of The Last Temptation of Christ. I’ll never get tired of seeing the illusion of period movies broken up by these BTS shots, especially if the illusion-breaker is Scorsese in shades looking about as gangster as he ever did.

Click to (slightly) enlargen!



If you have a behind the scenes shot you’d like to submit to this column, you can email me at

I’ve been going a little overboard with the horror pics recently, so I hope I haven’t depleted my files. I mean, October begins in a few short hours and it’s kind of tradition to do up nothing but horror BTS pics… I’ll see what I can do for the whole month, but let’s say tomorrow’s pic is for sure gonna be from a scary movie.

-Eric Vespe
Follow Me On Twitter


Click here to visit the complete compilation of previous Behind the Scenes images, Page One
(warning: there are some broken links that will be fixed as soon as I can get around to it)

Click here to visit the complete compilation of previous Behind the Scenes images, Page Two

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Sept. 30, 2012, 11:58 p.m. CST

    Great movie, need to revisit it.

    by chuckmoose

  • Something like that.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 12:03 a.m. CST

    Blasphemous trash, I could never get through this film.


  • either doesn't realize Mr. Scorsese's intentions or is just willfully dense.

  • I don't get it. I mean if you don't believe in a particular religion that's fine but why do these guys have to go fuckign around with this shit that they know will only just cause a stir when it's shit they don't even believe in in the first place? You don't believe in "magic" Jesus? Fine. But why go make a film abou it? It's like making a film disproving Santa Claus. Why bother? What possible good could come from it? And the film was pretty lame, all I remember is Harvey Keitel basically degrading Jesus almost to a comical point and Jesus screwing chicks.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 12:29 a.m. CST

    mentaldominance, just stop

    by Vrolokus

    First of all his intentions were not "blasphemous" at all. Second, it's an excellent movie with a powerful message. And third, I'm a little appalled and completely disagree that only a certain group of people "own" Jesus and can talk/write books/shoot movies about him. Give me a fucking break.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 12:43 a.m. CST

    mentaldominance, you sound like a fool......

    by john

    Scorsese is a devout catholic. This film is essentially his conversation with God, asking the questions most people do (did Judas really 'betray' Jesus? how could Jesus not marry?). Making Jesus human makes his sacrifice all the more powerful and makes us question ourselves in such a situation - having to give up a human life for the greater good. Everyone has beliefs and everyone has doubts about them - Scorsese is the first to commit them entirely to film. If you only remember "Jesus screwing chicks" then you obviously have never seen the movie - you're just looking to be a negative zealot.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 12:59 a.m. CST

    "Blasphemous" and mentaldominance

    by ShadowHamlet

    Scorsese is rather famously Catholic. By several accounts he seriously considered being a priest. So one can hardly accuse him of not being a believer. One cannot easily accuse him of intending to just "cause a stir". What someone knows about a filmmaker is not always relevant to understanding the film on its merits but since it was bought up I had to deal with the issue. What Scorsese did, is adapt a novel that tried to emphasize that Jesus in the scriptures is both human and divine, but many modern believers seem to have forgotten the human part and made Jesus perfect. Jesus got angry in the temple, he had doubts in the desert, he wondered if God had forsaken him when he was dying on the cross. Sound like a perfectly divine being or someone being human? The film and novel were an interpretation, a point of view, a certain possible reading, of who Jesus was and what the sacrifice meant. It seems to me that Jesus being afraid to die, wanting to live, wanting to be human, and yet choosing to die, is more noble than Jesus being perfect and having no fear. All the stuff that people freaked out about (Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene) is fairly clearly shown in the film as occurring during Jesus's hallucination when on the cross. This can be viewed as the Devil tempting Jesus to reject God or as Jesus dreaming of the life he desires but must willingly reject in order to fully embrace and accept his role. Now that I have been reasonable in my response... The only people who have trouble with this film are people with a childish view of Jesus. People who want to think that he never took a piss or a dump. Never had an erection. Never had a wet dream. People who think Jesus died a virgin. Jesus was human and (if you believe it) he was also divine. But too many people want to treat him the way teenage girls treat the latest boy pop teen idol. "Oh my God! He is so dreamy! I hope one day we can hold hands and share a chaste kiss on the cheek!" Fuck that and fuck the people who have so little humility that they think they can say what is and is not blasphemous. Was Jesus more black or more white? Was he married or not? Debate it. Discuss it. Don't claim to know. We have bits in the bible saying he was "bronze" but nothing saying he was married or single. Sure you can "assume" he was single since there is no mention of a wife. But we also know the book is compiled from several sources, things are lost, editing has been done but its hard to prove. So maybe he did and maybe evidence was removed. Maybe he wasn't married. But it sure ain't clear. Maybe it matters maybe it doesn't. But don't claim to be 100%. Everyone is having to muddle through it and either go with a little "faith" or just "believe". That isn't the same as knowing for a fact. So here you go. Those that think you know it all. Here is what I "know". God told me directly in a dream. So if you argue with me you are being blasphemous. Jesus was gay. He never got married (bad for a Jewish boy), no record of him dating or getting laid (and he had some good party trick with the bringing back from the dead, fish and loaves, water to wine tricks), and he hung out with guys all day. Plus, he never said anything specifically about abortion. so I think he was Pro-Choice. Probably an abortion doctor (he was a healer right? So could heal the parasite called a fetus right?) Remember kids, God told me this in a dream. So it has to be true. No other viewpoints allowed. Any deviation from my version of the truth is blasphemy and you get God's guarantee that you, your family, your friends, and your pets, all go to hell.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 1 a.m. CST

    Spiritual Examination

    by melchior42

    I find the concept of a fallible, questioning, confused and even terrified Jesus to provide a much more interesting examination of spiritual conflict and direction than the 'Superjesus' myth of a sinless, blameless, wholly immaculate figure. If Jesus existed, he was human. Whether you believe he was the direct 'son of god', or not, he was incarnated as flesh and as part of the human condition. He underwent trials, tribulations, doubt, etc. Love, loss, grief, pain, etc. Too many aspects of the christian myth focus on his 'otherworldly' aspects, while they seem to ignore the struggles he would have faced as a human. Especially if he had a glimpse of what he would have to endure in the last days. I'd say Last Temptation provides a much more realistic look at what Jesus was probably like than any host of prettified, beautified, re-written gospel narratives about a mythical avatar for good named Jesus. Anyone dismissing the film as 'blasphemous trash' without having actually watched it through is obviously missing the point of parables, metaphors, conflict, humanity, myth, storytelling, or any potential spiritual lessons within Last Temptation, or the Bible itself. I wouldn't expect discourse beyond entrenched sound-bites. So leave them to their close-mindedness, don't feed the trolls, and don't try to drag others to your enlightenment. It won't happen.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 1:17 a.m. CST

    the conclusion of the film

    by mrbong

    as i recall, was Jesus rejecting the last temptation of the Devil and pleading to his Father to allow him to be his son. this was granted, and thus Christ was last seen on the cross, declaring his fate, and the forgiveness of man, to be accomplished. if that is in any way blasphemous then i misunderstood whatever it was they were teaching in Sunday School over the years. is the angle of "blasphemy" that they show exactly what it was Jesus was tempted with? if anything, illustrating what he gave up surely underlines his sacrifice for Man? on a slightly less controversial angle of the film, Bowie was awesome as Pilate and turned in a performance that should be seen as the personification of an epic cameo. contrast it, if you will, to his performance in the Twin Peaks film to see opposite ends of the spectrum. and let it be said that Peter Gabriel's soundtrack is one of the most amazing albums of all time.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 1:37 a.m. CST

    Uneven but inspiring film, & not blasphemous

    by ReportAbuse

    Or at least, blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder. Human or god, it's all the same. Jesus taught the unity of the flesh and the spirit. In opposition to the "world" of illusion (the "matrix".) "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" -- i.e., let the world be the world (ruled by its god, Lucifer, the divisive passions) but let "the Father" (higher knowledge of What Is) be what It is. Jesus came to start NO religion, no denomination. As he told Joseph Smith eighteen hundred years later, all sects & creeds are an abomination unto that Reality.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 1:41 a.m. CST

    Also, you must read Kazantzakis' original novel

    by ReportAbuse

    It is a masterwork by a true literary master. Anyone with any interest in literature and/or the spirit also needs to read some of his other works such as "Zorba the Greek" and "Saint Francis." These novels feature Christ-like antiheroes (Zorba and Francis) and will throw a lot of light on how the author viewed Jesus also. "Saint Francis" had me weeping like an idiot over some passages. (Speaking of ... Dostoevsky's "The Idiot" is worth a look as another great modern treatment of the Christ archetype.)

  • I hope for nothing, I fear nothing, I am free.(Kazantzakis' epitaph. He was excommunicated by the Orthodox church and was not allowed to be interred in sacred ground, ironically enough.)

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 1:49 a.m. CST

    Author's reply to the Church back in the day ...

    by ReportAbuse

    The Church of Greece condemned Kazantzakis' work. His reply was: "You gave me a curse, Holy fathers, I give you a blessing: may your conscience be as clear as mine and may you be as moral and religious as I." The Greek Orthodox Church anathematized him in 1955. The Last Temptation was included by the Roman Catholic Church in the Index of Prohibited Books. Kazantzakis' reaction was to send a telegram to the Vatican quoting the Christian writer Tertullian: Ad tuum, Domine, tribunal appello ("I lodge my appeal at your tribunal, Lord.") (Wiki)

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 1:55 a.m. CST

    Religious people

    by Tom McMahon

    really creep me out.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 2:23 a.m. CST

    dark_lord_xenu's post is almost as dopey as mentaldominance's

    by Vrolokus

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 2:41 a.m. CST

    Shadowhamlet. Well said.

    by Gabba-UK

    And I say that as an atheist. One of my major problems with how some people interpret the bible in particular, is that 2000 years of social change and development gets flung out of the window in order to justify a narrow and blinkered mindset today. A strict interpretation of it says that working on the Sabbeth is punishable by death. I don't see church congregations going to Walmart with a bag of rocks to chuck at the assistants in the meat section on Sunday. It's the cherry picking of a 2000 year old document, 1600 if you want to get picky, to justify a modern bigotry. When I read the bible, what I got was a general feeling that love, humility and respect of all people no matter what their view was the general ethos of it. And in that respect its a good model to base your life on. But there a sections in it that in a modern context are just plain wrong and should be dismissed as long outdated thinking in our modern age. Anyway, that's my view.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 3:33 a.m. CST

    Saint Pastitsios

    by Jack Black

    approves of this film.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 3:41 a.m. CST

    Jesus was a sect leader

    by kwisatzhaderach

    It was the Roman emperor ConstantIne making christianity the official religion of the Roman empire that led us to the fucking mess we're in today. Religious people walk through life with their eyes shut and their brains switched off. I've lost patience with all of them. Stupid and ignorant.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 4:20 a.m. CST

    You guys are gonna be so surpised...

    by gerry derboven

    when you discover that I came from lv-426.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 5:08 a.m. CST

    The Gospel according to Marty...

    by Darkness

    I absolutely adored this movie on release, and remember playing it in a loop when it reared it's head on the home entertainment circuit. All the fracas it generated on release was unnessesary: It was just a subversive account of the gospels, and even delivered us a disclaimer from the outset. The camera work was incredible; Willem Defoe's embittered, depressed son of god was moving, and Peter Gabriel just drowned us in biblical ambience with his milestone score - mesmerising stuff. As for the Bible-Bashers: It is a personal perspective, nothing more, nothing less. Kazantzakis gave us a prayer book that never subscribed to those religious groups who dedicate themselves to dancing around the purity of Christ; it just intended to elaborate solely on the darkness of Jesus' torment, instead of reiterating on what we already knew. The scene where Christ had a hard-on for Magdalene: Big deal - i mean, he was human like the rest of us. He was also a humanitarian, a carpenter, and a lover of fine wine. Anyway, it's a fucking masterpiece - second to "Raging Bull"

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 6:10 a.m. CST


    by FluffyUnbound

    Actually, the Council of Chalcedon declared that believing Jesus was only divine and had no human nature was a heresy. If he had a human nature, the events of the film are not only not blasphemous, the Gospel accounts essentially make them *necessary*. The Gospels record that in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus struggled with doubt and fear. He couldn't or wouldn't have done that if he didn't have a mundane human aspect.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 7:09 a.m. CST


    by Balkin Flabgurter

    Whatever that sensors pickin up, its a life form..

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 7:23 a.m. CST

    Best Jesus movie ever, because there was a plot twist

    by Ricardo

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 7:59 a.m. CST

    love the soundtrack.

    by vulturess

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 8:02 a.m. CST

    @vulturess: splendid call on the music

    by gerry derboven

    it's one of the best Peter Gabriel works and that's saying something. The music is timeless, enchanting, otherwordly and sensual all at the same time. Along with 'The Thin Red Line' this is the soundtrack i have played the most in its entirity.

  • Anyone who loves Christ hates this film.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 9:06 a.m. CST

    Brilliant movie! I love Christ and this film!

    by Dan

    Jesus had human feelings and wants just like everyone else... this only makes him all the more admirable and powerful. Defoe was robbed of an Oscar.

  • His very existence and experiences were inherently human how could they not? being tempted with a wife and to live life as old man with kids would have been very appealing instead of dying for a species that quite frankly didn't deserve it at the time...(maybe not even now). WOW!

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 9:19 a.m. CST

    Had a big argument over who the better actor is...


    Duvall or Keitel. Can't believe they've never shared the screen (Apocalypse Now doesn't count).

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 9:22 a.m. CST

    If Barbara Hershey (circa 1988) tempted me...


    ...I'd give in.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 10:25 a.m. CST


    by Lobanhaki2

    Aren't you a little above your pay-grade telling us who's going to be burning in hell?

  • ... since the Jesus in the movie is both human and divine, which means it's exactly as in christian dogma, his double nature. How can anybody fail to notice that when the movie movie is about that, something that's constantly brough up through it's running time? In the movie Jesus is fully human as well as divine, and in him he embidies everything that's human. That's the point of the movie, to portait his human side while never once forgetting the divine. Most art is about Jesus's divine nature, obessively so all throughout the history of christianity. What makes "The Last Temptaiton Of Christ" special is that it's one of the very few works that's about his human side. Also, most people misuse and misunderstand what the movie is blasphemous about. The movie is not blasphemous because it's about Jesus or for portaiting his human side. The movie is actually blasphemous but on a very obscure theological technicallity which few called religious people actually know, and that's because most people who claim themselves religious barely know their own religion's theology. If you want to know, the thing the movie is actually really blashmeous about is the use of Jesus as a metaphor for the human condition and fight beweet their human side and their divine side. Jesus as perfect (theologically speaking) can't be a metaphor because perfection is not representative of anything else but itself.

  • All others always fall short of the mark.

  • Because it's assuming what God thinks. This is why every extreme funbdamentalist christaisn are always falling into the deepest blasphemies, always presuming they have their god totally figured out, they who are humans, frail humans. This type of stuff always cracks me! In fact, it's quite the contrary, if you truly love Jesus you love this movie, and you can even love this movies and not being a religious person. This movie is beyond mere religiosity. This movie is art and can be appreciated by both the religious and the profane. As it should. there is no less in loving this movie as to love the Sistine Chapel's paintings or Gregorio Allegri's Miserere (Psalm 51). You do not need to believe in Jesus to have them both move you to tears, same thing with this great movie.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 11:24 a.m. CST

    mentaldominance You are free

    by Anthony Torchia

    You are free to join us in the Light any time you wish Man, have they seriously fucked with your head Good Luck, Jim! :-)

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 12:22 p.m. CST

    I don't believe in jesus

    by disfigurehead

    I just believe in me.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 1:15 p.m. CST

    yoko and me. That's reality.

    by Aaron

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 1:15 p.m. CST

    The dreeeeaaaamm is ooooovaaaahhhh!

    by Aaron

  • One thing I’ve never grasped is this blanket assumption everyone shares (even many non-Catholics) that Jesus existed at all. Outside biblical reference (which we all know is HIGHLY questionable), there isn't a single shred of evidence, at all, supporting the idea that this man actually lived. It's one of those fallacies that everyone just shares and never questions. We are all told Jesus lived, so we just assumed he did. The church lies and claim there is evidence elsewhere, so we just accept there is. However, if you look into it, the ONLY supplemental 'evidence' the church offers is the existence of the catholic religion. That's like arguing Xenu is real because there are Scientologists. The truth is it's unlikely such a person ever walked the earth (or water, for that matter) as his character was an amalgam of several other 'divine' profits rumored to have existed in the Mediterranean for centuries. PS - I still loved this movie.

  • The fact that they go to the trouble of explaining that he was born in Bethlehem. (I hat tip Christopher Hitchens for giving me this one.) Jesus is repeatedly called Jesus of Nazareth. But when the gospels were written, two of the authors went to the trouble of coming up with a cock-and-bull story about how he was actually born in Bethlehem. That's because the Old Testament prophecies said that the Messiah would be born there. That to me sounds like a situation where you had a known individual who was clearly from Nazareth, so his propagandists ret-conned his biography to make him born in Bethlehem. If they were just going to make somebody up, they would just make up Jesus of Bethlehem. That's the cleanest way to do it. You only ret-con the Christmas story if you've got a real live person who happened to be from the wrong town, and you need a cover story to make him be from the right one.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 2:39 p.m. CST

    @ fluffyunbound - Are You Joking?

    by Sluggolicious

    The reason I think Peter Pan exists is because, whoever created him, went through the trouble of calling his home 'Neverland.' If they wanted to really try and fool readers, they'd have used the name of a place we already know to exist, to make it seem more plausible. The fact that they ignored the obvious more method and used a place noone's ever heard of indicates to me that it really must have existed . . I guess you can utilize any mental gymnastics you want if you're dead set on deluding yourself into believing in something. PS - Retconning? Really? The entire bible is retconned, edited and chopped up. If they cared that much about Jesus' birth place aligning with the Old Testament prophecies, they'd have just re-written the entire account to make it match.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 2:50 p.m. CST


    by maxwell's hammer

    FYI, I'm an athiest and do not believe in the divine nature of Jesus. That said, beyond all the mystical hoo-hah in the Gospels, there is also a shit-ton of actual corroborated history. Jesus isn't just something somebody made up centuries later, but is actually referenced in documents dating back to the time of his supposed life and in the immediate generation following his death. And not just in the Gospels, but in a lot of apocryphal writing as well. I'm not saying he is 100% an honest-to-goodness historical figure, but historical evidence actually leans toward him being an actual person. He is a guy a lot of people (both early Christians and non-Christians) talked and wrote about, and was later put up on a pedistal by the followers of his followers' followers.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 2:59 p.m. CST


    by maxwell's hammer

    PS...If they cared that much about Jesus' birth place aligning with the Old Testament prophecies, they'd have just re-written the entire account to make it match.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 3:08 p.m. CST

    the TalkBack ate the rest of my post...

    by maxwell's hammer

    Anyway, in answer to the above quote... You can't just re-write something that everyone knows isn't true. Jesus was probably a real guy and he was much discussed even in his own time, and everyone knew he was from Nazareth. If he wasn't real, yes, you could just change it and say he was from Bethlehem, but everyone knew that wasn't true, which required some explanations and rationalizations to fit with Old Testament prophecies. You can make shit up about someone's purpose in life or their role in the salvation of humanity, but inventing things about a real person's personal biography is more problematic, and you can see that reflected in writings that actually date back to the time of Jesus! It would be like if Mitt Romney's Mormonism for some reason posed some kind of problem to his being accepted as a candidate to fundamentalist Christians. If that were the case, then why not just rewrite him so that he's a Christian too? Because he's a real person and everyone knows he's Mormon! btw, it doesn't appear Romney's being a Mormon is posing the above-state problem, but that was just an example. ALso btw, you can't use quotation marks in the Talkback? WHat the fuck is up with that?

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 3:23 p.m. CST

    Jesus built my hot rod

    by vondamage

    bing bing bang a bang a bang bing bong bing a bing bang a bong binga bing a bang a bong bong bing bong bing banga bong

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 3:47 p.m. CST

    @ Maxwell's Hammer . . .

    by Sluggolicious

    You write Jesus 'is actually referenced in documents dating back to the time of his supposed life and in the immediate generation following his death.' I'm sure you believe that (as most people do, for no reason whatsoever), but I dare you to cite a single source. I'm not talking about those documents that reference the existence of Christianity, I mean actual accounts of a man named Jesus. I'll give you from now until the end of time.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Sluggo I'm the biggest atheist here.

    by FluffyUnbound

    But I'm also an expert liar. And if you're making up a lie to match the Old Testament prophecies and starting with a blank piece of paper, you make up a guy called Jesus of Bethlehem. You just don't make up a guy named Jesus of Nazareth and then go back later and say *Oh shit, let's add a whole part where he was secretly born in Bethlehem!* You're making it harder for yourself. I'm also fairly familiar with the textual analysis of the gospels, and with what comes from the Q source and what's a later addition / interpolation. By far the most likely scenario, the one most in accord with Occam's Razor, is that there was a person named Jesus of Nazareth. He was almost certainly an Essene. He was in some way connected with the John the Baptist movement. All the rest of it is nonsense, but these things are fairly likely to be true, if only because these elements of the story make the later march of Christianity to power *harder*, and any element of the story that makes the spread of the movement harder and not easier is unlikely to have been a deliberate invention. The cleanest hypothesis, the one that requires the least elaboration, is that there was a movement centered around a dead preacher who was well known as being from Nazareth. Then some wiseass pointed out the Old Testament prophecy about Bethlehem, and the evangelists said *Oh, shit! We forgot about that!* and they went back and added the Nativity tale. But they needed to work that story in around the Nazareth connection; they couldn't just jettison Nazareth. And that very strongly implies an underlying real person's biography that they were forced to work with.

  • That's exactly what I'm saying. That's what they would have done, if there weren't existing facts they couldn't change and that were locked in place. And the only way there'd be existing facts locked in place that they couldn't change is if there actually was a person as the kernel of the story who was known to have been from Nazareth. The only reason NOT to write an entirely self-consistent account to make sure it matches is if you can't get away with that. If you HAVE to have him be from Nazareth, because everybody in your audience already knows that, but he also HAS to be from Bethlehem, because the story has to match the earlier prophets.

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Is inspired and, at times, amazing...

    by txtone04

    The scene where Jesus draws the circle and is visited by a lion, snake and fire is some of the greatest filmmaking ever!

  • Oct. 1, 2012, 7:39 p.m. CST

    sluggo & zurrenarh

    by maxwell's hammer

    I have no idea what lives up to your rigorous standards, but there are ample 1st and 2nd Century documents from Pliny the Younger to the Jewish historian Josephus to Nero via the Roman historian Tacitus that refer directly to Jesus. None of the above-listed sources had any reason to perpetuate a lie about a made-up holy man, and several of their statements speak of Jesus skeptically as The So-Called Christ. He's referred to basically as that criminal that Pontius Pilate executed that a bunch of people are now worshiping for some reason. There're also a lot of references to James's condemnation by the Sanheddron and how he was the brother of the So-Called Christ. Feel free to propose your steel-proof rebuttal which I'm sure will consist of *Yeah, but those aren't real and and its not verified and where's the video evidence!!*, but your willfull ignorance doesn't make reality not true so I think I'll sleep okay tonight.

  • That's it. So eat up, troll. You're like the fundies I know (I'm Catholic) who think The Exorcist is evil, completely ignoring that it's about a priest fighting Satan and sacrificing himself to win (discounting the sequels, of course). The Omen, I could at least understand, but not The Exorcist.

  • Oct. 2, 2012, 10:51 a.m. CST

    @Mr fluffyunbound

    by albert comin

    The great hit against the use of Bethlehem as christ's birthplace to justify his existence is that only one of the gospels bothers with that, all the others couldn't give a toss about it. Worst, we know all the census the romans took, and there was not one done during Jesus's supposed lifetime. Also, the romans never forced the population to go back to their birthplace to get censored. The romans couldn't give a shit where one was born, they cared where one lived and taxed him by present status. Also, the romans wouldn't be so stupid as to force a mass movement of the populations for such a silly reason, clogging the empire's roads, with the consequential hurt of commerce and business. The romans weren't stupid. Also of notice is that the bible says that the census happend during the days of Herod, known in history as Herod The Great. It doesn't specify which year in the rule of Herod it happened. And so it happend, that Herod was a very long lived king (died aged 70) who ruled for a very long time (from 37 to 4 BCE). So, your argument in support of your belief that Mr Jesus Of The Christ existed is based on a completly clueless way the romans did their census, on a census that never existed, which happened on an unspecified time somewhere during a 35 year long reign, all from a single gospel that bothers to refer to it so that Mr Christ's birthplace can coincide with an ancient prophecy. Also, it's useless to try to use the mention of Caesar as a reference to the ruling roman emperor of the time because all the roman emperors of the Julian-Claudian dynasty called themselves Caesar, from Augustus to Nero (the term emperor is in fact a retcon to that dynasty, as they didn't called themselves that nor were those emperors called as such). So no, it's not really that believable an argument to Mr Jesus' historicity.

  • Oct. 3, 2012, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Maxwell's Hammer wins.

    by Jon Forbing

    Flawless victory. Also, I hate to say it, but mentaldominance: That is some expert trolling. 8.5/10.