The Passion of the Christ

Tools    





Originally Posted by bluebottle
I would really like to know which sources corroborate this claim of yours. To the best of my knowledge, the earliest mention of Jesus , is a piece of papyrus from the Gospel of John, that has been dated to circa 125 AD . As for Nazareth, there seems to be scarcely sufficient proof that there was a city by that name during the first century.
Well, I must admit I'm not at all an expert on world geography or world history, and I'd only illustrate my ignorance in an attepmpt to argue proof that Nazareth existed. There have been thousands of ancient cities, countries and empires throughout recorded history. Without research, I personally cannot cite proof that Nazareth existed anymore than I can cite proof that Mesopotamia existed. However, I can acknowledge the fact that I have heard Nazareth referenced in more than just the Bible.

As for the papyrus dated 125 AD (assuming you are not mistaken), well it is known that the Bible itself was not compiled for about 300 years after Christ. This, also, is assuming that the dating is correct. The scientific community no longer relies on carbon dating -- it has been proven grossly inaccurate.



Proof isn't needed where faith is concerned. These kind of arguments are moot.
__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."



Indeed, proof is not needed where faith is concerned and I don't judge the quality of a person by their personal beliefs; I don't care what religion someone claims, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Neopagan or even Voodoo, they all have the same validity to me.

Havig said that, I would like to point out, that kctheshooter made two statements claiming evidence for his faith.
Originally Posted by kctheshooter
... science tends to support Christianity more than anything else.
and
Originally Posted by kctheshooter
... you can still appreciate the historical truth of the story --
So you see, it wasn't I who demanded proof, I merely pointed out the falsity of his assertions.
I apologise if I offended anyone, that wasn't my intention.
__________________
Let us go, Through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster shells


From The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S.Eliot



Originally Posted by bluebottle
So you see, it wasn't I who demanded proof, I merely pointed out the falsity of his assertions.
I apologise if I offended anyone, that wasn't my intention.
I took no offense at all, bluebottle. I too, do not judge anyone for their beliefs (or lack, thereof). I would, however, not classify what I said as false assertions. My assertions are no less supported than yours.

1. Historical references, from a secular perspective, refer to Jesus as having been a Jewish rabbi in Israel who stirred an uprising by claiming to have been a diety during Caesar's Roman Empire.

2. Science does SUPPORT Christianity. I did not at all imply that it PROVES it, or can be used to prove it. That WOULD be presumptuous.

- Carbon dating, for example, has been proven very inaccurate. Most, if not all, of the scientific community has acknowledged this. As it turns out, science cannot accurately date the world (at this point) any further back than about 4-5 thousand years. This means that Christians who believe in creationism vs evolution still have an argument. It's believed that biblical references go back approximately 2000 years BC. It doesnt mean the world is definitely no older than 4-5 thousand years, it just means we cant prove it was around for millions of years like we once thought.

- In the Old Testament, it is written that God tells his people what was acceptable or 'clean' food -- fish without scales, shellfish, and pork, for example were to be avoided. Marine biologists have learned that shellfish and other bottom dwellers are the 'filters' of the ocean. They contain toxins and waste that we probably shouldnt ingest. We also know shellfish tend to be high in cholesterol.

- Modern scientists have not been able to discredit the markings on the Shroud of Turin. They have been able to prove that the shroud did come from around Jesus' day, and that the markings are not of any kind of paint, manmade material, or other known discoloration, and that it is the proper dimensions. The placement of the stains on the shroud also support the biblical references to how Jesus was wounded. This does not at all prove anything, but the lack of proof otherwise SUPPORTS the claims.



A system of cells interlinked
Originally Posted by kctheshooter
This does not at all prove anything, but the lack of proof otherwise SUPPORTS the claims.

This is an easy trap to fall into. Lack of proof for something doesn't then support the idea. Lack of proof/disproof means exactly what it would infer, that the subject is neither proven nor disproven, and then becomes a matter of choice for the person perceiving the issue. This is the point many other variables are introduced to the equation (feelings towards the issue, upbringing, cultural beliefs etc etc.) At this point I tend to apply Occum's razor and tend to lean towards the more likely choice. Some things can be neither proven nor disproven and as Slay stated, the issue becomes moot.

Good discussion though. Blue and KC- Glad you folks signed on to MoFo, you both seem very astute and help to add to the coversation around here. I hope to learn a lot from you folks.

Cheers

Sedai
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Originally Posted by bluebottle
So you see, it wasn't I who demanded proof, I merely pointed out the falsity of his assertions.
I apologise if I offended anyone, that wasn't my intention.
You didn't offend me, bro. I was just piping in that no amount of argument would likely work with somebody who's sole basis for debate is faith. It's like peeing upwind.



Point taken.



Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
You didn't offend me, bro. I was just piping in that no amount of argument would likely work with somebody who's sole basis for debate is faith. It's like peeing upwind.
Ha!!!!! Good analogy, Slay. I like that! Some people do not have an open mind at all, and I certainly hope I'm not coming across as an evangelizing fundamentalist. No, I'm not a religious zealot at all -- I wasnt "born again" and am now trying to save the world one forum at a time :-). I was born and raised a Catholic. Point in fact, I have many disagreements with most Catholics about dogma, as well as with the fundamentalist protestants about biblical accuracy and interpretation, ESPECIALLY where it concerns creationism, social ethics such as drinking alcohol and dancing, as well as the concept of 'being saved' and 'born again'. I stopped going to church with the fam when I was 17, considered myself a 'deist' (a medieval belief that there was an 'uncaused cause' as the source for the creation of everything, but no "God"). You could have just called me an agnostic (or even an atheist), for that matter.

Whatever you may think, please do not make the mistake of assuming that faith is my sole basis for arguing in favor of Christianity. What I have mentioned regarding science and the bible is not opinion, but facts. I also have to agree with Sedai that a lack of proof against does not truly constitute proof in favor. I probably used the term 'support' too loosely. The point is that while they may not TRULY support Christianity, some of them definitely disprove other secular theories used AGAINST Christianity. So as he pointed out, the point is moot -- the score is still 0-0.

In summary, my overriding opinion on spirituality has always been that either there is no such thing as religions or deities, or only one is right. We can't all be right -- THAT's an impossibility. The mere fact that there are so many religions, some of which vehemently ridicule each other, and even kill in the name of their faith, is what leads me to believe this.

We can look at it this way: If the atheists are right, then nothing will matter because life will go on, we will die, and that will be that. But if one of the hundreds of religions are right, the rest of us may be screwed!



Is it me or does the fact that the movie that has replaced the Passion in the number one spot, "Dawn of the Dead" seem kinda...ummmm weird. HAHAHAHHAAHA kinda funny too.
__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



Originally Posted by 7thson
Is it me or does the fact that the movie that has replaced the Passion in the number one spot, "Dawn of the Dead" seem kinda...ummmm weird. HAHAHAHHAAHA kinda funny too.
Really? DOTD replaced the Passion? Well, it had to happen sometime. And I saw DOTD on opening day and it was really good, and the Passion has been on top for a long time.
__________________
Remember, remember, the 5th of November
I'm afraid I must bid you adieu.
He woke up one night with a terrible fright
And found he was eating his shoe.



A system of cells interlinked
Sorry to interrupt folks, but this post is for the assclowns that keep stopping by MoFo, reading this thread, and signing up just to give me bad reputation.

I would advise reading how the reputation system works on this site before randomly signing up to give bad rep to a member. Your actions are both futile, and a waste of your time, as the system is set up to weed out people like this, and no rep change is recorded. Also, if my post offends you, why not leave a message/member name and step up to the debate plate. If your stance on the issue at hand is weak enough that you have to hide in the shadows and send unsigned rep messages to members, than I guess I understand why debating is out of the question.

The ideas articulated in my posts are my opinion and if they offend you, tough ****, read something else.

We now return to your regularly scheduled thread...

_S



Originally Posted by Sedai
Sorry to interrupt folks, but this post is for the assclowns that keep stopping by MoFo, reading this thread, and signing up just to give me bad reputation.

I would advise reading how the reputation system works on this site before randomly signing up to give bad rep to a member. Your actions are both futile, and a waste of your time, as the system is set up to weed out people like this, and no rep change is recorded. Also, if my post offends you, why not leave a message/member name and step up to the debate plate. If your stance on the issue at hand is weak enough that you have to hide in the shadows and send unsigned rep messages to members, than I guess I understand why debating is out of the question.

The ideas articulated in my posts are my opinion and if they offend you, tough ****, read something else.

We now return to your regularly scheduled thread...

_S
Off topic, but I got to know, what the heck is an "ass clown"? Heard it before but no idea what it is, it is generic for "jerk"? Just asking, thanks.



A system of cells interlinked
Just some funny word that isn't too harsh, but lets a body know where they stand with me

I would have to credit the film Office Space I guess....

_S



chris jericho used that word alot in the wwe. it's pretty funny!



Kaiser "The Devil" Soze
Originally Posted by Yoda

Hmm, $309 million, eh? I think it'll be rather close. But okay, I'll take that bet.
Hey Yoda I won out on this bet, The Passion of the Christ is now standing at 315.020 Million making it #13 of all time grossing films, and the film still has some steam in it.

http://movieweb.com/movies/box_office/alltime.php
__________________
And like that .... he's gone



Originally Posted by kaisersoze
Hey Yoda I won out on this bet, The Passion of the Christ is now standing at 315.020 Million making it #13 of all time grossing films, and the film still has some steam in it.

http://movieweb.com/movies/box_office/alltime.php
Yep; just gave you rep for it. I knew when I took it it wasn't a particularly smart bet.

Anyway, I don't think it has a prayer (no pun intended) of catching Jurassic Park, but I suppose it has a shot at finishing with a bit over $340 million, which would unseat The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers for eighth on the all-time domestic gross list.

Impressive, any way you look at it, but, as I said earlier in this thread, passing Titanic was probably out of the question.



I don't need what you ain't got.
NEWBIE!!!!

Just wanted to say that I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the discussions here at MoFo. This one especially.

btw, sedai, regarding the Babel event. I'm hoping you're a neal stephenson fan, not someone who'd randomly use the phrase 'neuro-linguistic virus'. heehee



A system of cells interlinked
Originally Posted by Slayer
NEWBIE!!!!

Just wanted to say that I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the discussions here at MoFo. This one especially.

btw, sedai, regarding the Babel event. I'm hoping you're a neal stephenson fan, not someone who'd randomly use the phrase 'neuro-linguistic virus'. heehee
Ah yes!! I knew I had read it somewhere, some years ago, I just couldn't remember where. I remember there being some Aleutian canoe paddling guy with glass knives and a nuclear bomb wired into his brain or something along those lines....I think I need to read more of his stuff

btw, Welcome to MoFo.



Yoda, or kaisersoze, do you think any upcoming movies will surpass Titanic. Like maybe Troy or Spider Man 2?