Son of God

[Hierarchy of Angels]

I hope you all are excited as I am for the release of Son of God on the big screen on Feb 28 2014, just in time for lent.
So for this discussion, what do you think of the release of the movie? Should it / should it not be release (because of religious influence)
Do you plan on watching it to have a better understanding / idea of the life of Jesus?
What do you think of Jesus? Who is he to you?

[catspook]

I honestly couldn't care less about the film, but I do want to ask about this part of your OP:

"Do you plan on watching it to have a better understanding / idea of the life of Jesus?"

It sounds like you have already decided that this film is to be trusted as an accurate representation of the life of Jesus - what makes you think that?

[stealthmongoose]

To answer your last question, Jesus is an inspirational myth, so I don't have many strong feelings about the film anymore than I would have for Walt Disney's Hercules.

I do hope they release a live action move about the life and times of Perseus, the son of one of many God's that existed the same way Jesus did in ancient Greece.




Wait, they already did? In that case, I think the Son Of God movie is a great way to bring the myths of Christianity to an audience that loves fiction. Some of them might end up worshiping it, but probably no worse than Rocky Horror Picture show was worshiped.

[TANRailgun]

Good lord (pun intended), do we really need another one of these...I mean we already have "Jesus Christ Superstar"...no way you can top that...

Who is Jesus to me? A character who probably never existed in the way we think. He's probably based on a real person (or maybe multiple people), but I doubt the story we all know is very accurate.

That being said, I like his philosophy for the most part. I dig the being charitable stuff, and that possessions aren't necessary to be happy/enlightened and actually hinder the process of becoming a better/happier person, etc...I agree with all that. It's the "believe in me or go to hell" stuff I don't like.

[Azriel_eph210]

stealthmongoose

To answer your last question, Jesus is an inspirational myth, so I don't have many strong feelings about the film anymore than I would have for Walt Disney's Hercules.

Saying that Jesus never really existed is the easiest way to avoid the conviction of his teachings. It's a typical tactic, along with saying that God doesn't exist to avoid what He says about sin. Still, in order for Jesus to be a myth, it would have to be shown that the gospel accounts were highly embellished and inaccurately copied and transmitted. That isn't the case, since:
- the Gospels were written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, yet no one objected to Jesus actually existing
- the Gospels contain historical content in line with documented history
- the Gospels have been transmitted accurately (i.e. better preserved than even the words of Plato, Caesar and Aristotle)

Additionally, considering that there are other, non-biblical accounts mentioning Jesus, it would be very difficult for anyone to demonstrate that He never lived. Some of these are:
- Flavius Josephus (Jewish historian)
- Tacitus (Roman historian)
- Pliny the Younger (governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor)
- The Talmud (central text of Rabbinic Judaism)
- Lucian (Greek satirist)
- Celsus (Roman philosopher)
- Suetonius (Roman historian)
- Thallus (Greek historian)
- Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories)

[Islamic Teacher]

To me Jesus (peace be upon him) is the son of Mary, a Prophet of God, the Messiah sent to the Children of Israel, and herald of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
He wasn't the son of God, or God Himself, he was a messenger of God sent to preach the Gospel (Good News) to the Children of Israel and reteach the Message of Moses (peace be upon him).
He wasn't crucified because God saved him and raised him unto Himself and Jesus will return to kill the Dajjal before the Day of Judgment.

[Limonchiki]

I'd rather go to church for 2 hours and 18 minutes, every day of lent

than see another overacting, smirking, pretty boy Jesus.

neutral

WHERE is not particularly impressive Middle Eastern Jewish Jesus I mean COME ON IT IS 2014

[Victoria of Gallifrey]

Anyone with any sense about themselves should take a film for what it's worth. Walk in with the intent to enjoy a film. If you enjoy it, great. If you don't, oh well. And if you get something spiritual of value out of it, so much the better.

I say otherwise harmless, because people really need to stop with their concerns at the fact that it's a film for one. Seriously, if they want to think past that or get all Illuminati/random religious controversy, etc. you can choose to ignore or entertain their notions.

I however will be going to watch what is sure to be an interesting FILM.

[stealthmongoose]

Azriel_eph210

stealthmongoose

To answer your last question, Jesus is an inspirational myth, so I don't have many strong feelings about the film anymore than I would have for Walt Disney's Hercules.

Saying that Jesus never really existed is the easiest way to avoid the conviction of his teachings. It's a typical tactic, along with saying that God doesn't exist to avoid what He says about sin. Still, in order for Jesus to be a myth, it would have to be shown that the gospel accounts were highly embellished and inaccurately copied and transmitted. That isn't the case, since:
- the Gospels were written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, yet no one objected to Jesus actually existing
- the Gospels contain historical content in line with documented history
- the Gospels have been transmitted accurately (i.e. better preserved than even the words of Plato, Caesar and Aristotle)

Additionally, considering that there are other, non-biblical accounts mentioning Jesus, it would be very difficult for anyone to demonstrate that He never lived. Some of these are:
- Flavius Josephus (Jewish historian)
- Tacitus (Roman historian)
- Pliny the Younger (governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor)
- The Talmud (central text of Rabbinic Judaism)
- Lucian (Greek satirist)
- Celsus (Roman philosopher)
- Suetonius (Roman historian)
- Thallus (Greek historian)
- Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories)

The attempt to Euhemerize Jesus is a very well known pursuit, and while I never mentioned Jesus never existing, the myth of the Biblical character has no more significance in Jewish, Roman, or World History than does the myth of Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, or Galactus the World Eater.

Why do you equate non-existence and fictionality with a lack of inspirational power? I liked Disney's Hercules, just like I loved Clash of The Titans. Passion of the Christ was a little masochistic for my taste, but pretending that these myths are on par with actual historical events is quite childish and disingenuous to the reality of the history of various nations and cultures.

Shall we start assuming the River Styx as an actual place of torment now, all because you cite a few cultural fables and people who agreed with them as valid evidence? Josephus by the way, being closely scrutinized as a possible fraud?

[BippyT_T]

dude, jesus is as real to me as ghandi is to the rest of the world. he was a preacher like buddah, people idolized him and made him a celebrity like the way we do with famous people now. we put words in their mouths and actions that they have never done in to our mindsets. the whole religion of Christianity is a joke, and to celebrate it like that in media in a very very untruthful way isn't very pleasant to me.

jesus was a cool guy with super rad mindsets about life. people took him the wrong way though *coughBIBLEcough*

ok. bye.

[GunsmithKitten]

It's just a feature length clip show with some deleted scenes from The Bible mini-series, which actually as a TV series was pretty interesting. Save your money, go find yourself a copy of the series instead, if only to see a pair of angels going swords akimbo on the inhabitants of Sodom. pirate

[King Shining Heaven]

It sounds interesting, but I'm not going to see it. Jesus, to me, is my Lord and Savior.

[stealthmongoose]

Bippy crying

dude, jesus is as real to me as ghandi is to the rest of the world. he was a preacher like buddah, people idolized him and made him a celebrity like the way we do with famous people now. we put words in their mouths and actions that they have never done in to our mindsets. the whole religion of Christianity is a joke, and to celebrate it like that in media in a very very untruthful way isn't very pleasant to me.

jesus was a cool guy with super rad mindsets about life. people took him the wrong way though *coughBIBLEcough*

ok. bye.

Evidence that Jesus existed? Gandhi is confirmed by more than a few primary sources that were around at the time.

Also, if you're so adverse to the Bible, why would you call Jesus by his Biblical name? I'm here strictly to refute the Biblical account of Jesus.

[Azriel_eph210]

stealthmongoose

Azriel_eph210

stealthmongoose

To answer your last question, Jesus is an inspirational myth, so I don't have many strong feelings about the film anymore than I would have for Walt Disney's Hercules.

Saying that Jesus never really existed is the easiest way to avoid the conviction of his teachings. It's a typical tactic, along with saying that God doesn't exist to avoid what He says about sin. Still, in order for Jesus to be a myth, it would have to be shown that the gospel accounts were highly embellished and inaccurately copied and transmitted. That isn't the case, since:
- the Gospels were written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, yet no one objected to Jesus actually existing
- the Gospels contain historical content in line with documented history
- the Gospels have been transmitted accurately (i.e. better preserved than even the words of Plato, Caesar and Aristotle)

Additionally, considering that there are other, non-biblical accounts mentioning Jesus, it would be very difficult for anyone to demonstrate that He never lived. Some of these are:
- Flavius Josephus (Jewish historian)
- Tacitus (Roman historian)
- Pliny the Younger (governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor)
- The Talmud (central text of Rabbinic Judaism)
- Lucian (Greek satirist)
- Celsus (Roman philosopher)
- Suetonius (Roman historian)
- Thallus (Greek historian)
- Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories)

The attempt to Euhemerize Jesus is a very well known pursuit, and while I never mentioned Jesus never existing, the myth of the Biblical character has no more significance in Jewish, Roman, or World History than does the myth of Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, or Galactus the World Eater.

Why do you equate non-existence and fictionality with a lack of inspirational power? I liked Disney's Hercules, just like I loved Clash of The Titans. Passion of the Christ was a little masochistic for my taste, but pretending that these myths are on par with actual historical events is quite childish and disingenuous to the reality of the history of various nations and cultures.

You're right; you never said that Jesus didn't exist. I jumped to conclusions after you called Him a myth. Based on what you've said, I guess that you believe Jesus to have been an ordinary man with greatly exaggerated stories...is that correct?

Quote:

Shall we start assuming the River Styx as an actual place of torment now, all because you cite a few cultural fables and people who agreed with them as valid evidence? Josephus by the way, being closely scrutinized as a possible fraud?

That would be a preposterous assumption to make, which, I guess, was the response you expected. After all, I can grab a fable and a few people and call it reality. However, that isn't the case with Jesus. Sure, people who followed Jesus agreed regarding the accounts of his miracles and acts. What about the various historians who make mention of the same--historians that didn't all subscribe to the same people group? I'm no historian myself, but I would HOPE that a historian can tell the difference between a myth and reality--especially if they're living at the time when the events took place. For example, it would be near impossible for me to write a false account regarding the events that took place on 9/11, since eyewitnesses are still alive, and since other historians have already written historical accounts.

As for the video, I assume you shared it to give an example of how Josephus is being scrutinized as fraud? Alright, let's leave Josephus out, since a group of people are scrutinizing his loyalties to accurate history based on their theories... (btw, going on record that the video neglected to mention the disciples and other eyewitnesses of the time--an interesting topic to leave out when discussing the creation of the "Jesus story.")

What about the remaining historians? After all, as the video noted, the Romans and the Jews were at odds after the destruction of the temple. So how do we explain Roman historians writing accounts in agreement with Jewish tradition? After all, the accounts of Jesus paint the Jews in a pretty bad light...if they were merely fabricated stories that find their origin in the Roman Empire, then the Jews, specifically the Talmud, should exclude them. However, that isn't the case. Anyway, if we were to carry the theories of the video through to its logical end, then we can't trust ANY historical documentation from the Roman Empire. In which case, we'd have nothing to stand upon except theories and ideas anyway--which, ironically, would mean that the video and its creators would reign supreme in historical accuracy. Quite the exercise in object lessons, I would say.

[Dieu des hommes]

It's based on a pretty underwhelming and boring story. So I don't think I'll even bother.