Sammael Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 Well i mean if its as historically acurate as possible It is not. It is gospel-accurate, and gospels were written after so much time had passed that they cannot be historically accurate. There are no doors in Jefferson that are "special game locked" doors. There are no characters in that game that you can kill that will result in the game ending prematurely.
Judge Hades Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 Exactly Sammael. The closest to one to Jesus' death was 30 to 40 years afterwards while the most of the books of the new testament was written in the 1st to 3rd centuries.
Craftsman Posted February 24, 2004 Author Posted February 24, 2004 U r exactly right hades. But so what. Im sure a even that significent would stay in anyones minds, plus they were Jesus disiples and were infulenced by the holy spirit. Would u forget a event like that?
Rhombus Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 Exactly Sammael. The closest to one to Jesus' death was 30 to 40 years afterwards Depends on how you date them. Recently alot of theologians (?) have started dating Mark I think it is pretty early. And then there is the discussion about the source documents to explain the similarities between Matthew and Luke. while the most of the books of the new testament was written in the 1st to 3rd centuries.Where do you get that from?... the oldest "book" in NT is supposedly the revelation and was written around 100 AD. Paul's letters (which makes up the bigger part of NT) are by most theologians/scientist dated before 70 AD, and Paul's own death in 66 was it? Also, there is the matter of keeping the story alive orally, without writing it down... that they cannot be historically accurate. Yeah, 30-40 years is a soooo long time... I mean there's no idea to write essays or books about WWII nowadays because it's been so long you know. There aren't many historian that doubt the historic person Jesus Christ. The fact that he lived and was crucified is pretty well accepted, concerning his resurection... there are doubters... on the subject of the movie being anti-semetic?... as Plucker pointed out, Jesus, himself, was a Jew, all of his first disciples were Jews, the whole first generation of christians were basically Jews etc... Am I missing something here? What do you want?..
Vladek Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 well yeah 40 years is a long time now but we have lots of writen and visual records of world war 2 and also people live longer these days, so there are still people around to give first hand accounts, back then you'd be lucky if you lived to be 40 years old! and lets face it there weren't all that many books around then! and certainly no film cameras! so 30-40 years was a long time!
Shadowstrider Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 Yeah, 30-40 years is a soooo long time... I mean there's no idea to write essays or books about WWII nowadays because it's been so long you know. Do we have video record of Jesus? How about Hitler? What was the average life expectency in the time of Jesus? What was the average life expectency in the time of Hitler? How many people were capable of writing in the time of Jesus? How many people were capable of writing in the time of Hitler? Keep your head up, you won an award with your post. Worst. Comparison. Ever. There aren't many historian that doubt the historic person Jesus Christ.OK... this proves? on the subject of the movie being anti-semetic?... as Plucker pointed out, Jesus, himself, was a Jew, all of his first disciples were Jews, the whole first generation of christians were basically Jews etc... Am I missing something here? So Jesus was a jew, thus the movie cannot be anti-semitic? No. I don't believe the movie tried to be anti-semitic, its just that the gospels can easily be interpretted as such. All these people saying tis anti-semitic should be protesting the Bible, not this movie. The bible makes more money every year then this movie does.
chevan Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 I'm going to see it with my local church. One thing I'm glad for is that they've put it in whatever language they're using. I'm tired of the stereotypes of a white, colorfully dressed, well treated, English speaking Jesus and followers. Once, in a church, I saw a statue of presumably Mary holding what I guessed to be Jesus. The thing is, Mary and Jesus were pale white, Mary was dressed in bright reds and blues, had a halo around her head, and was holding rosary beads. What? Granted, in the Passion, I think Jesus is still portrayed as white, but that's at least better than before.
Vladek Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 is everyone on here a religous nut? ITS JUST A FILM!!!!! since when were films ever acurate!
neriana Posted February 25, 2004 Posted February 25, 2004 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0224-01.htm They're gonna show this in CHURCHES?
Craftsman Posted February 25, 2004 Author Posted February 25, 2004 What a biast article. Obisiously someone to needs something else to cry about. See it for yourself.
Rhombus Posted February 25, 2004 Posted February 25, 2004 What was the average life expectency in the time of Jesus? Longer than you think it seems... taking figures I know from my studies, Paul is thought to have become about 60-70, born around the same time as Jesus, and died in the around 66 AD I think... Same with Peter and most of the apostles, i.e. the eye witnesses. Don't know about other historically, but I can't see any reason why other people wouldn't have become that old. How many people were capable of writing in the time of Jesus?More than you guys seem to think, it seems, since there is pretty many things with written stuff on it found from those days, like a rather huge portion of personal letters... Still you seem to think that people weren't as smart then as now, and that even though they perhaps couldn't write or didn't live longer than lets say 40 then, they would forget things after 40 years. There are traditions of orally remembering very very long stories and songs through several generations. It might seem strange because I can't remember what it was I was to do today that I thought of tomorrow if I don't write it down somewhere... I don't see any problem with it being 30-40 years before the documents we have now was initially written. Going by the most probably authors, Luke has meet the apostles and traveled together with Paul alot, and as he claims have done extensive research. Mark was one of Peters best friends. Matthew and John are supposedly the disciples, and thus eyewitnesses.. What's to say they didn't keep diaries or had written it down earlier, and the documents we have are compilations or something. There are theories of a much earlier source document for Matthew and Luke... etc. I'll admit my comparision was perhaps a little off... ok, they didn't have video at that time. But that doesn't mean they were as stupid and forgetful as we are today. I don't believe the movie tried to be anti-semitic, its just that the gospels can easily be interpretted as such. All these people saying tis anti-semitic should be protesting the Bible, not this movie. Yeah, then that's my point... I don't get why they complain about the movie when the bible is pretty clear that it was the Jewish leaders that wanted him dead... wether the bible is anti-semetic or not... I don't think it is, but I can understand if someone with such motives could make it look so. What do you want?..
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now