The Passion of the Christ
- Thread starter Decado
- Start date
- Status
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
quite a great film...don't listen to the haters.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
AMUSIX said:
Doesn't it make sense that it Jesus was a carpenter, he'd be awesome at it?
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Sapiens said:
So you went from believing in Jesus to...um...believing in Jesus?
Jamesfrom818
Banned
I'm Catholic so whenever someone asked me if I was going to watch it, I told them I read the book.
Stoney Mason
Banned
methane47 said:
He is most likely talking about the details of the movie which follow traditional religious lore since we don't know exactly how it went down. We know there was a Jesus most likely but the rest is religion adding on after the fact.
And on a sidenote if anyone wants to see a more scholarly take on it, this old frontline special is a pretty good beginning primer.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/watch/
methane47 said:
Not trying to fan the fire. But Josephus is a dodgy historical source of Jesus at best. I know it's now passe to dispute the historicality of Jesus, but I think logically if you analyse the historical data at hand the only conclusion you could come to is that Jesus could have existed.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
genjiZERO said:
I'd agree with this. Most of any historical evidence of Jesus is from the new testament. Outside of that there is Josephus's throwaway line about him, maybe a few other little things here and there but nothing concrete, unless you take the bible as the gospel(heh heh). I think he lived and was crucified as I really don't see a reason why anyone would make up that story to promote a new religion, but the evidence of his existence is hardly definitive.
Stoney Mason
Banned
methane47 said:
Jesus probably existed. He was probably crucified. Other than those two things which even there is debate about very little is concretely known.
Compared to say Mohammed whom we know relatively a great deal about the Jesus story isn't very factual in most aspects.
methane47
Gold Member
What makes the argument against Jesus's existance is awesome is that if a historian who wrote about Jesus, believed in christ, his writings would be automatically dismissed.
Personally though.. i think even the most atheist of folks.. think that he existed... but not in the same capacity
Stoney Mason
Banned
methane47 said:
You are confusing the potential historical jesus with the religious jesus. They are not the same thing. It is unfair to sort of compare The passion of the Christ with history much in the same way that it is unfair to compare science with religion. As long as they are two separate domains that is fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
speculawyer
Member
It is a snuff film for Christianity.
Tyrone Slothrop
Banned
sorta unrelated to anything, but i read that it was actually about 300 years after jesus' death that christianity came into being.
i told that to my southern baptist mom and she told me i was retarded and that didn't make sense. ah, southern baptists.
i told that to my southern baptist mom and she told me i was retarded and that didn't make sense. ah, southern baptists.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, the Gospels were written 40 to 100 years after Jesus died. That kinda explains why they are not consistent with each other and claim things that are obviously exaggerated stories. And it took a while after that for the religion to really get started.Tyrone Slothrop said:
Stoney Mason
Banned
Tyrone Slothrop said:
While there are many religious people who do know their history surrounding their religion and have taught me some things myself, many religious people don't. All they know is a very modern right wing faux literalist interpretation of the bible.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
Tyrone Slothrop said:
Nah it was certainly earlier than 300 years after his death. Christianity existed as a cult almost immediately after Jesus died. Christians were persecuted in Rome by Nero who died 68AD, so Christianity was certianly around then. What you read could have just been about when it became the official religion of Rome, which would have been about 300 years after he died. But as a religion Christianity certainly existed way before then.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
It's pretty absurd to suggest that the Jesus movement sprang up from nothing - especially since the evidence seems to suggest that his relatives were running the show for the first while.
The most compelling argument for his existence is the criterion of embarrassment - basically, if you were going to invent a fictional saviour, you wouldn't depict him as being so fallible. The Bible records him being rejected, fucking up, doubting himself and being executed like a common rapist. It just doesn't make sense - it would be too subtle to be an invention, especially given that there was no shortage of competing Messiah candidates at the time.
There's also a good chance that his family's tomb has been found.
That said, were the gospels massaged to fit the Messianic prophecy? Undoubtedly. There are too many things that seem to happen because they need to, in particular with regard to esoteric Jewish numerology.
The most compelling argument for his existence is the criterion of embarrassment - basically, if you were going to invent a fictional saviour, you wouldn't depict him as being so fallible. The Bible records him being rejected, fucking up, doubting himself and being executed like a common rapist. It just doesn't make sense - it would be too subtle to be an invention, especially given that there was no shortage of competing Messiah candidates at the time.
There's also a good chance that his family's tomb has been found.
That said, were the gospels massaged to fit the Messianic prophecy? Undoubtedly. There are too many things that seem to happen because they need to, in particular with regard to esoteric Jewish numerology.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
Tyrone Slothrop said:
Well, to be fair you are incorrect.
There were followers of Jesus from his ministry onwards - what you're probably thinking of is the Emperor Constantine's declaration of religious tolerance in Rome, and his becoming the first Christian emperor and basically making it the de facto religion of the empire - that was the real beginning of the institution we think of as the Catholic church. This happened almost exactly 300 years after what we generally date as Jesus' death.
Fourth Storm
Member
LiveFromKyoto said:
I think most scholars would actually call that family tomb a long shot. It's possible, but unlikely. Besides the fact that the names were very common in that era, all evidence points to Jesus' family being poor and from Nazareth. They weren't in a position to have an elaborate family tomb close to Jerusalem.
I want to give another recommendation for The Last Temptation. I really enjoyed it, and Willem Dafoe rocks as Jesus.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
Fourth Storm said:
It's not unlikely that their followers sprang for them to have a nice tomb - it would hardly be unprecedented. The thing with the tomb is not that the names are uncommon, just that it's a 600:1 shot of having them all in the same place, and even less likely of them being in the same place and dating from the right time period.
But yeah, nobody can say with certainty that it's them. That's why I just said there's a good chance it's been found, that's mathematically all you can say.
Dragonflyg1
Banned
It's a good Christian movie that pulls no punches against the forces that condemned Jesus. I applaud Mel Gibson for his bravery.
Fourth Storm
Member
LiveFromKyoto said:
I'm not saying I'm an expert on the topic, but it is somewhat of a passion of mine. I have the documentary you are referring to, and while I found it compelling at the time, it now seems as if it was based on shoddy archaeology. Look at the list of scholars who claim to have been misrepresented in the film. I am inclined to take their opinions more seriously than sensationalist television archaeologist, Simcha Jacobovici.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
Dragonflyg1 said:
Why are people so down on the forces that condemned Jesus? According to Christianity his whole point was to die so they just helping that along. And I've always liked the idea that some people have with Judas suffering in hell for the role he played in "mankind's salvation," that he suffered (suffering?) more for us than Jesus did.
Fourth Storm
Member
Count of Monte Sawed-Off said:
Unless you follow the Gospel of Judas, in which Jesus himself convinced him that it had to be done. I don't think he would be condemned to hell in that instance.
Besides, to say Judas even went to hell is presumptuous from the start. How are we to know he didn't get some kind of pardon?
Stoney Mason
Banned
Dragonflyg1 said:
Hmmm. Why don't you elaborate because unless you are talking about very specific things in a religious sense or literal movie sense there is a chance this is quite a dumb post.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
Fourth Storm said:
Call it the Gospel of Judas all you want, I call it the Gospel of Scorsese (I know that movie was based off a book, but Scorsese's so damn cool).
Hopefully he'd get a pardon, kind of fucked up if he didn't. Since if he did betray him he was probably desinted to do it which would mean he had no free will in the matter, which means its God's fault and he should lay off.
Fourth Storm
Member
Count of Monte Sawed-Off said:
Yeah, the whole free-will vs. predestination is something that could be debated forever on these forums and elsewhere.
And yeah, Scorsese did a hell of a job on that movie, but I was referring to the actual Gospel of Judas, which predates the movie and book by some 1700 years.
Edit: Going back to the original topic, Gibson's depiction of the Jews in The Passion is not in line with the scholarly opinion, but more a faith-based stereotype that has unfortunately caused long-term animosity between Jews and Christians. It is unlikely that Jesus had any sort of trial in which the Jewish masses would have had the opportunity to call for his execution. Pilate would have ordered the crucifixion with little fanfare. Tensions between Jews and early Christians likely produced the steadily increasing anti-semitism written into the gospel accounts of the passion story.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
Fourth Storm said:
Not true since Scorcese is such a perfectionist he went back in time to do his research, so he got all his facts straight from the horses' mouths. It was the same time machine that Michael Mann invented for his research on The Keep.
Yeah, the whole Gospel of Scrosese thing was more of a joke than anything.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
I thought it was okay but hardly something I'd watch again.
AndersTheSwede
Member
I thought it was pretty good. I'm an atheist (ok, hard agnostic), so everything after his death was a big rolls eyes for me, but it was an interesting film.
I don't really get a lot of the anti-semite controversy around the film. It shows a major split between elements of the jewish community over what to do, and a jewish dude helps him carry the cross.
I came out thinking "that one rabbi is a fucking douche" not "all jews killed jesus!"
I don't really get a lot of the anti-semite controversy around the film. It shows a major split between elements of the jewish community over what to do, and a jewish dude helps him carry the cross.
I came out thinking "that one rabbi is a fucking douche" not "all jews killed jesus!"
Stoney Mason
Banned
AndersTheSwede said:
Fourth Storm sort of covers the historical aspect of why this sort of depiction bothers jews. There has been a lot of scapegoating historically refashioning a conflict into a narrative lesson and rewriting history into something that either didn't happen or can't be proven to have happened.
Passion of the Christ follows into the tradition of this sort of thinking and the history of Mel Gibson doesn't help although I agree, if you went into the movie and didn't bring in a lot of foreknowledge or judgment it's not something that would necessarily catch your notice.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
Fourth Storm said:
I haven't seen the documentary. Most of my knowledge of it comes from an excellent recent book about it by an American scholar - the name of which I can't remember to save my life (I think it was "the Jesus " something or other) and somebody walked off with my copy two years ago. It's the most interesting reconstruction of the Q & M sources I've ever read, and I think he really nails just how into Jewish mysticism Jesus and his apostles were, and how much the Jesus movement was really a Jewish political movement focused more on rebellion against the Romans than universal salvation, and how Paul seems to have transformed the movement and taken it over after Jesus' death.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off said:
I like Scorsese, I like that movie, but honestly, it's a pale shadow of the book. Nikos Kazantsakis was the most important Greek Philosopher of the 20th century, and as a thinker and somebody with a deep grasp of spirituality and metaphysics, Scorsese just isn't in his league. There's a tremendous energy to the book that just isn't there in the movie.
LiveFromKyoto said:
Personally I wouldn't argue that there was no historical figure that Jesus was based off of, or that he came simply into being as a character. But I would argue that it is likely that the person we call "Jesus" may not have existed. I think it's likely that there was a teacher or a line of teachers that eventually became personified as Jesus and then later deified with the development of Christianity.
I also believe that it's likely that "Jesus" existed in a time before he was supposed to. Personally, I think it's just a little too convenient that he was born at the beginning of the Roman empire.
Something that I've always thought interesting about Jesus (if you take out the deity aspect) is that he doesn't fit the paradigm of a Western religious teacher at all. However, if you place him in the context of pan-Hinduism he fits perfectly (his teaching style, life-style, and even his message and use of followers). Jesus' persona is just like that of a swami or yogi. I asked a Buddhism scholar about this once, and he said that within Indic studies this was a concept a lot of people talked about. Hinduism had gone through a philosophical Golden Age a few centuries before, and he believed that Jesus had been influenced by this.
However, I take it a step further. I think that it's possible that "Jesus" was in fact an Upanishad era ascetic whose cult spread westwards, and merging with the Hebrew tradition became Jesus. I also think it's possible that this cult developed into Krishna (whose philosophy is almost identical to that of Jesus) in India.
I'm not saying any of this is fact. And I certainly don't any evidence to support it. I just think that if you de-mystify Jesus,and do a bit of comparative religion you'll find that the parallels are a little too un-canny to be mere coincidence.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
genjiZERO said:
Actually, I disagree on that last point - Nazareth was a village whose nearest city was Sepphoris, which had been decimated by the Romans around the time Jesus was born. The Jesus movement makes far more sense when seen as a political reaction to a national enslavement and slaughter - the parallels of Rome and evil in the Bible are endless. It's not difficult to understand why Israelis at that time felt that the end times were near. Millenarian preachers and prophets were all over; it's actually quite likely that John the Baptist (who was arguably Jesus' cousin) was head of a similar group which Jesus joined, then came to take over when it was clear he had "it".
This is a widespread notion, and in part is quite likely. The Silk Road went through Damascus, and was a major vector for the transmission of eastern religion - Buddhism in particular begins to show up all along it, and early communities can be found through eastern Europe. While I don't believe Jesus would have been part of a Hindu group, there's little argument that Jewish mysticism such as Qaballah drew heavily upon eastern ideas, as well as those of the Mediterranean mystery cults. I think there's little argument that Indo-asian meditation and prayer practices and ideas, moreso than the individual groups (Hinduism was not a particularly evangelical religion), were widespread along the Silk Road at the time.
Kazantsakis gets into this at the beginning of Last Temptation - Jesus is an insecure young man hearing voices working as a carpenter who goes off to live in a desert spiritual commune, where he undergoes his first major spiritual transformation.
And he draws a clear parallel between Jesus' 40 days in the desert and Siddharta's enlightenment beneath the Bodhi tree - if you see/read the way the scene plays out, it's almost identical.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Which is pretty much what the movie is meant to do. You're supposed to feel uncomfortable with it since the suffering and sacrifice of Jesus is an important theme within Christianity, but one that is lost on those living in the modern era wherein suffering and torture are not a part of the everyday experience.JB1981 said:
So yeah, you don't just sit down with a thing of popcorn and watch The Passion. It's not meant to be entertainment, but rather a harrowing experience to make the faithful think about their faith.
If you're an atheist looking for an entertaining flick though, it's best to skip it (though it is beautifully shot, if you're into that sort of thing).
Uh... Muslims believe in Jesus too (he's considered to be one of the prophets of Islam). If I recall correctly, he retained the virgin birth, crucifixion, Messiah-title and everything.Sapiens said:
I thought that bit was a bit WTF, but to be fair, Jesus didn't actually invent anything - he just made the table and chairs to the rich man's specifications. At best, he worked for the inventor of the modern table.LiveFromKyoto said:
You could say the same thing about Buddha or anybody other important historical figure who wasn't a king, soldier or ruler who could commission historians. What we do know is that there were christians in Rome in the 60s AD and they were a large enough and subversive enough group to get cracked down on hard by Nero - to the point where they were mentioned in contemporary writings. In 68 AD, the events of 35 years prior would easily still have been within living memory and certainly so in both Rome and Jerusalem.genjiZERO said:
I find it highly unlikely that there wasn't a historical Jesus - a leader/teacher who rode to fame (as it were) on the back of a Jewish proto-nationalist movement but who coalesced into the pacifist spiritual leader we know so well.
LiveFromKyoto said:
Very good points.
To be clear when I say "Hinduism" I mean more than what we call Hinduism today (even modern Hinduism is fragmented). I mean everything that is a reaction for or against the Vedas. So I'm including both Buddhism and Jainism in addition to Vaishnavism, Shaivism, etc in that definition. Yes there are great parallels between the stories of Siddhartha and Jesus.
viciouskillersquirrel said:
I certainly would say the historical reality of the Buddha is quite questionable.
My only statement is that I don't think Jesus fits into the Biblical paradigm very well. If you study Vedic thought and practices you'll see that Jesus isn't much different than any other guru. But he doesn't seem to be particularly similar to any of the other Biblical prophets. Muhammad seems to have more in common with the prophets of the Bible than Jesus does. Now this is complicated by the fact that there are two distinct Jesus' (Jesus the teacher and Jesus the deity). And like it or not Christianity has had more than a healthy dose of both Hellenisation and "official review" (I think it's unreasonable to assume that when Romans adopted Christianity they dismissed their previous beliefs and practices unconditionally).
I do think there was a historical person(s). However, I do think it's unreasonable to question the notion that a Jewish carpenter who lived during the reign of Tiberius is that person; especially considering that there isn't any hard historical evidence (only inference) to support his existence.
Fourth Storm
Member
genjiZERO said:
The whole Jesus was a Hindu/Buddhist teacher is intriguing, however it is not a new idea. I am inclined to agree with the scholarly opinion which maintains that Jesus' ministry is based on a very 1st century Jewish view of life. The far east does not have a monopoly on mystical traditions, and the community at Qumran is a testament to that. I find the possibility that John the Baptist and Jesus may have been influenced by this sect of Judaism far more likely than either of them traveling to India. The material in the NT widely held be the scholarly community as likely coming from the historical Jesus shows an intimate understanding of Jewish scripture along with some common sense psychology and eschatological expectations. Debate on scripture interpretations and parables were already common practice in Jewish groups, such as the Pharisees.
Things like Jesus' 40 days in the desert should be looked at as a parallel to the Israelites wandering in the desert and not as a historical fact suggesting a connection to Krishna, Siddhartha or whoever.
As far as real evidence for the man, I find it possible that the person known as Jesus may have been quite different from the figure in the NT. I believe Josephus refers to another Jesus, who lived in the first century BCE, that many faithful take as evidence for the Jesus of Christianity. Perhaps someone can refresh me on the details. However, if we look at Paul's letters, he refers to his meetings with Peter and James (Jesus' brother). Paul also acknowledges the 12 disciples. This seems to be decent (although far from conclusive) evidence that a Jewish wisdom teacher/healer/social movement leader by the name of Jesus existed at the time in which the gospels tell us.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Do you think it's reasonable to doubt his existence or don't you? Your final sentence is somewhat ambiguous. I agree that it might be reasonable to express some small doubt, but in all likelihood, there was a historical Jesus the carpenter whose followers founded Christianity.genjiZERO said:
As for hard historical evidence in his life, you may as well ask for the tomb of Homer - the nearest external reference to him from his lifetime was 400 years later, not less than 40 as in the case of Jesus.
The lone teacher who preaches pacifism and expounds on the self-evident conclusions this philosophy implies, while revolutionary in the ancient world where violence held sway, is hardly a once-in-history event and the parallels you see would have happened anyway, common origin or not. I think you'd find similar themes and motifs cropping up in many religions, Eurasian or not, the spiritual needs of humanity being universal.
- Status