Posted by Kevin at ac815577.ipt.aol.com on August 22, 2003 at 15:30:38:
In Reply to: Response posted by Mrs. Isis Fabulous on August 22, 2003 at 12:32:59:
: : If you doubt the Bible holds water as said accurate description, that's a you against the
world, "Dogma"- type argument (trust me, I know); because most of the world - religious
and secular - acknowledges the four Gospels as the historical record of Jesus' life and death.
: From where do you draw this statement? I haven't talked to most of the world lately, so I
honestly don't know.
Isis, from most of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you're smarter than this.
: Do you mean that the Gospels are the ONLY record of Jesus' life and death?
Yes. And as such are considered, academically as well as theologically, as historical
documents.
: Because I can agree with that. But they aren't a "historical record". We haven't exactly got
a birth certificate for the guy nor is there any physical record of him on the Roman census.
From Luke:21-3
"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire
Roman world. And everyone went to his own town to register."
Apparently, this passage in Luke refers to the first census that took place while Quirinius
was governor of Syria.
However, no Roman Census was held to be absolute.
If you got to...
http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/romancensus.html
...you'll find this note at the bottom of the page:
"Note: All the figures given are problematical, in various ways. First, there is the problem of
the correct transmission of numbers in the manuscripts. Second, there is the issue of who
precisely are being counted in each census. Third, there is the question as to whether
complete census returns were ever made. Most authorities find it difficult to believe that
statistics prior to 340 B.C. are anything but fictitious."
But this, like much history, is muddled due to the subjective nature of the historical
experience. I'm sure there are over a hundred different versions of the night Lincoln was
shot, based on all the witnesses in the theater. But eventually, one version of the story
(perhaps one comprised of the multiple versions) becomes the historically accepted factual
account of the death of Lincoln. So, too, with the life and death of Jesus. You can stomp
your feet all you want, crying "Bullshit - he's not in the Roman Census!" Hell, I'll even join
you in aspects of your debate about the historic Jesus; however, only a willful ignoramus
rails against the fact that the Bible (like it or not) is an historically accepted account of the
life of Christ.
You realize this is like an argument over what color blue is, right? Maybe you don't agree
with the rest of the world on the subject, but blue has been roundly agreed to as being blue.
: And obviously, if the story is true there's no remains of him to be found.
Apparently remains have been found. There are reports of bones in both France and Japan
that are rumored to be Jesus'.
: In other words, we've got no proof the guy ever existed other than the words of his
followers.
The same can be said on a great many historical figures.
However, if you have further doubts in the historical Jesus (leaving aside His debated
divinity), check out this link...
http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html
: Now, in MY mind, that's a fine thing, and the very point of faith -- to believe what one has
no proof of, simply because it speaks to one's soul.
Again - that's the Divine Jesus you're talking about; the Son of God. I'm going back and
forth with you over the Historic Jesus - the guy you say maybe didn't exist, but did.
: That's what seems to me ultimately ironic about prosletyzing Christians of Mel's ilk.
For the record, Mel's particular sect of Catholicism is a branch I've never heard of until this
whole "Passion" thing kicked into high gear. I mean, they won't recognize any Popes prior
to Vatican II.
: If one's faith is strong, why does it need validation? Why must others hear and learn and
agree with Mel's specific beliefs and practice?
But they're not. From what I've read, Mel wasn't out there talking about how he didn't
recognize any Popes since Vatican II; that just outed during his recent roasting. Mel making
a movie about the death of Christ is not a guy looking for validation; it's a filmmaker
expressing himself about a subject that's apparently dear to him.
: If one is to argue that Mel's intentions with this movie are to tell a cracking good dramatic
story rather than to share The Truth with the world, then the burden of proof is on you. He
seems to have made clear in every interview I've read that his intention is to glorify Jesus
and spread the word.
Sure. Nothing wrong with that. That was my aim with "Dogma" too.
: Which is fine and beautiful, but is bound to offend those who do not believe in Jesus.
Not necessarily. I'm not a Buddhist, but I can watch "Seven Years in Tibet" and not be
offended (bored, maybe, but offended, no). I can watch any number of films about Judaism
and not be offended because I'm not a member of the tribe, so to speak.
: : Whatever limited audience that flick had to begin with, it's gotten even more limited with
all this brouhaha - not to mention some embarrassing private stuff about Mel Gibson and
his father has surfaced because of it.
: Now, this I just don't get. Why is the revelation of Mel's religious affiliation
"embarrassing"? I would assume he's not ashamed of it, or he wouldn't be putting it out
there.
But he's never really put it out there. Sure, he's said he's a Catholic. But I've never seen him
out there talking about how he doesn't acknowledge any Pope after Vatican II.
But I was really referring to the revelation that's outed over this "Passion" stuff that Mel's dad
is a Holocaust denier. I mean, yipes.
: And there's not much "private" about Gibson Senior's interview with the New York Times.
In direct quotes, he denied that the Holocaust ever happened (talk about denying historical
fact) and has not called or written in to request a correction since. Now, that IS
embarrassing, but it's his own fault.
And the world wouldn't have known how he felt unless this "Passion" thing had broken wide,
is what I'm saying.
: I guess we'll see. I don't know, *I* wouldn't normally be much into seeing a movie about a
subject I've seen covered (well) any number of times, filmed entirely in languages I don't
speak, directed by some guy whose beliefs are offensive to me...but I'm intrigued to see it
now.
: Isn't everyone?
Personally speaking? Nope.