:dubious: You’re offended by the fact that people have different beliefs to you? Maybe you should thicken up your skin a bit.
Like that it’s a crock?
I will reply to some of the other posts later when I have more time, but this one I want to address now…
Offended isn’t really the right word. Diogenes* used the word annoyed, which I like better. I’m not offended that he has such an opinion. But if someone put out a movie that’s purpose was to advance a philosophy you were opposed to, wouldn’t you be biased against the movie?
It would be ever so nice if you could refrain from saying such things outside of the Pit or GD. Honestly, it looks like you’re trying to get people riled up into arguing about it, because there’s nothing productive about throwing out one-liners like that. I put this thead in CS for a reason: I don’t want there to be a big debate, I would rather discuss the existence of the arguments and how they relate to the movie, and also how accepted his arguments are. Not to mention the movie itself.
*By the way, Dio, I was hoping you’d show up to this thread due to your knowledge of biblical criticism and your strange relationship to christianity
Well, it turns out that I have a lot more time than I thought I did…
Teenage Detectives: We’ve got Jesus! ties Jesus to chair
Hey, it looks like he’s wearing a mask! pulls off mask
gasp It’s old man Johnson!
Old Man Johnson: And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you meddling kids!
Dog: Rey!
Old Man Johnson: All right, and that mangy mutt too!
The whole thing is a little long for me to quote. It looks like everything that you say here is based on the premise that the authors of the Gospels weren’t who they claimed to be, actual disciples of Jesus. What’s the reasoning behind this belief? I always figured the inconsistencies were due to faulty memory combined with some bits of guesswork.
I have to be forthright about something here. I no longer really feel obligated to keep an open mind about my faith. I did until recently, but since then I’ve decided that I shouldn’t intellectualize my faith. I believe God gave me a brain and wants me to use it, but I’m going to find other ways to use it. Just so you know that while I’ll discuss this and maybe accept some of the reasoning on the other side, I’m not going to let it dissuade me from christianity.
I think that this is really what I meant by saying I’m not such a hip christian. I know that my stance will bring on some scorn.
Well, they aren’t exactly known for being considerate to the beliefs of others. In the defense of The Passion, its intent seems to be more along the lines of showing the story and not as an attempt to persuade people that the story is true. A christian version of The Beast would be more like this book*, only the proof of God’s existence would be less drastic and it would take itself seriously.
*I haven’t read the book, but I would like to.
By calling such a film “The Beast,” aren’t they implying that there is a “Beast” to speak of? Thereby implying that the belief that Christ never existed is a big ol’ fat deception?
None of the authors of the Canonical Gospels claim to be disciples. They are all four anonymous works (none of which conatain any claim by the authors to have been apostles or witnesses) whose traditional ascriptions of authrship were assigned in the 2nd century. Only two of them (Matthew and John) are apostles even by tradition. None of the authorship traditions are any longer regarded as authentic even by most conservative NT scholars. The reasons for this are lengthy and rather than bog down this thread with a lengthy exposition, I will link to This post in which I give a detailed summary of why those traditions are now believed to be spurious.
I doubt this movie is going to even be known well enough to generate a controversy. The IMDB entry claims it’s going to be released in two months but it doesn’t even list a credit for the main character. It’s written, directed and produced by a guy with no credits recognizable to the general public.
I guess you’d have to see the movie to find out. I’m kind of torn between wanting to see the movie and not wanting to feed the director’s ego.
Thanks for the link, it was very informative and definitely something to think about. I don’t want to turn this into a debate, so I’ll refrain from giving my reaction, except to say that your argument is certainly a logical one as far as I can tell.
Rickjay, I certainly don’t think that this movie would be well known without controversy. But I think someone is going to hear about it and make a big deal of it. In the past it would have gone under the radar, but I’m not sure that will be the case this time.