1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gibson's father says Holocaust mostly fiction

Discussion in 'The OT' started by John Hodgson, Feb 20, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    I understand your point Jon, but it isn't quite as strong as you'd like. I recall an event that was filmed, investigated literally by millions and millions of hours of human labor, had movies made about it, many books written about it, and yet many people still can't agree what really happened. That's right, the shooting of JFK. Now, if we can't come to any consensus on something that recent and highly witnessed, how could we possibly do so about something that happened 2000 years ago? You could say the same thing about most events in history. We have books now claiming that FDR knew in advance that the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor, and evidence that supposedly cooborates that claim. Ridicule Christians if you must, but bear in mind that the vast majority of things you believe to be true, outside of personal knowledge, are taken on "faith." That is, faith that the "reporter" is accurate and honest.
     
  2. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Jon, what strengthens the truth of the story to me is what is your stumbling block. The fact that all the gospels do not agree strengthens the story. As toenail points out about the assassination of JFK, with all the witnesses, photos, film, research, and blue ribbon committees, we still don't have an agreement as to what happened on that fateful day. It would seem to me to be much more of a setup, a collaboration, if all the stories agreed perfectly. Unless of course, you believed that God himself wrote out the Gospels personally, which you know I don't. It seems much more real to me, that after all those years had gone by, when the stories were written down, probably not by the eyewitness, at least not in all cases, that the accounts differ in elements of time and place. For the most part, I feel the stories, written from various points of view, make sense when woven together.
     
  3. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Well, we're talking fruit and other fruit here, aren't we? We know that JFK actually existed and had the top of his head blown off by an assassin in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, TX on November 22, 1963. And while we may not know all the whys and wherefores of how this happened or the motives behind it, nobody is claiming he came back to life 2-3 days later and appeared to his Cabinet either. The gospels claim all this and more, that Christ was in fact God incarnate and died a horrible death to relieve us of our sins. Yet, they cannot agree on some of the basic details of the actual event itself.

    Accepting the New Testament at face value is like insisting on the known facts of JFK's assassination along with SEVERAL of the wackier conspiracy theories thrown in and judging that anyone who questions this "gospel" is pig headed, arrogant, anti-JFK and definately on the wrong track.

    The real danger of Gibson's film, and so many others depicting Jesus of Nazareth, is that people take it as history. It is NOT! Aside from the fact that Nazareth probably didn't even exist before the 2nd century, there is no historical reference that fits this particular biography even though there are many "Jesuses" well documented to exist during about the same time period. It is myth, fable, legend, and at best should be labeled as subjective religious faith, and there should be a disclaimer as such. Even the famous Hollywood caveat, "based on a true story" would be a bald faced lie. But it WILL be presented as truth and millions will walk away from it believing that it IS the truth. This is the real crime and deception, not that Jews or Romans are slighted in the process.
     
  4. jrjcd

    jrjcd Arcane Movie Trivia King DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,806
    0
    Apr 23, 2002
    I could honestly give a rat's ass if your pea brain thinks i support the ideas of fringe groups or individuals that disavow one of the most horrendous events of the 20th century just because of punctuation, spelling or capitalization...

    but i thank you for reminding me why you're not worth the effort trying to have an intellectual discussion with...
     
  5. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I should know better. These debates are always futile because "faith" almost demands logic and reason be thrown out the window. Just listen to yourself.

    Your premise is that the "truth of the story" is "strenghened" because the tales are contradictory in many details. Does it follows then that if the details did match up, or even match up more closely, that would weaken the "truth of the story"? Taking this logic(used advisedly) one step further, the more the gospels disagree, the more likely they are to be true. You'd make a hell of a prosecutor or detective, looking for the most diverse eyewitness versions of an event to prove your case.

    And aside from some debate over who pulled the trigger, and why, we DO know exactly what happened on 11/22/63. Yet, it's insisted there are parallels. I may regret this, but OK, I'll bite. To the extent there are alternate conspiracy theories, they're almost exclusively a function of real or perceived secrecy by government officials and their minions(Cubans, mafioso, the Soviets, our own military, etc.). The early(and not so early) Church was quite secretive too. We all know, or should know, about the blood spilled simply to allow the Bible to be translated from Latin to native languages accessible by the masses. Using the logic of JFK conspiracy theorists, we might ask the logical questions. What did the Church have to hide? What were they covering up?

    So what ARE the parallels? The gospels are akin to the various JFK conspiracy theories? A secretive Church was model for secretive governments manipulating and disseminating information to advance their own self serving agendas? If these are your points, I don't consider them very good ones, at least not from your POV.

    This is what makes it so difficult and consternating to have a rational debate on this subject. I'm trying to discuss what appear to be inconsistencies, incongruities and/or outright contradictions in the gospels. Suddenly, a segue to JFK assassination theories.:confused::shrug:

    Atheists are always accused of being anti-religious, having an axe to grind. The reality is most of us are simply trying to get people to analyze religious faith objectively, seemingly a reasonable request. Unfortunately, tradition has been for even historians and archeologists to interpret their work through the mirror of the Bible, a shovel in one hand and a Bible in the other, so to speak. Only very recently have these diciplines begun a more objective approach. But still, the temptation to actively search for Biblical parallels is almost irresistible.

    I watched a program yesterday, I think it was on History International, about Mesopotmia, Assyria and Sumer, essentially present day Iraq, a very interesting show with much useful information. But the recurring subtext was how all this somehow confirmed the veracity of the Judeo/Christian Bible. The implication was that therefore the Bible was a historically accurate document and subliminally that it was devinely inspired and its stories developed independently of other sources. This despite the admission of the Israelites(including many scholars and scribes) exile in Mesopotamia where they were exposed to concepts like Hammurabi's code and the epic of Gilgamesh BEFORE the present Old Testament was assembled. It was pointed out that Jewish law likely grew out of the code and Gilgamesh included a great flood and a genesis from a Garden of Eden like paradise with evil snakes. Now objectively, one would assume that at least some of the Bible was more or less lifted from this code and epic, especially since so many literate Jews spent so much time immersed in these ideas prior to codifying the Bible. Nevertheless, these not so coincidental coincidences were inferred as confirming the accuracy and authority of the Bible. The final conslusion of the program was the speculation that the Garden of Eden was in fact Bahrain, an island in the Persian Gulf which once was much more lush then it is today, at least in comparison to much of the surrounding desert. And although we had not yet found any traces of Adam, the likelyhood that we would was held out as a strong possibility.:icon_stup :shrug:

    The point is that what could and should have been an objective, informative program on a network ostensibly devoted to "history", instead was used to reenforce religious faith in the Bible. My idea of history(and archeology) is the objective study of what has happened in the past. And being objective, it should not include the predetermined goal of confirming or denying specific events to give credence to religious perspectives.

    When the average viewer(perhaps less skeptical then I:rolleyes: ) sees such a presentation on "The History Channel", I cannot blame them for assuming their religious faith is being historically confirmed.
     
  6. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    All I have time to say right now is that I don't think the "contradictions" are as big as you make them out to be. Discrepancies, different points of view, different lists of who was where when are not a problem for me. If you want to list some contradictions in the gospels you want me to address, go ahead, but I'm not going to rectify the entire Bible for you.
     
  7. James Hill

    James Hill AllStar

    74
    0
    Jul 24, 2003
    You didn't get the memo, did you?

    The Bible has been replaced by The Da Vinci Code.

    James Hill
     
  8. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Yeah, right. :lol:
     
  9. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    One of the contentions that a lot of biblical scholars are having with this movie is the language thing. Mel has everyone speaking latin and aramaic, which is very inaccurate. Some jews at the time spoke Hebrew, with almost all people in that area speaking greek. Even the Romans like Pontius Pilate would have spoken greek, with latin being reserved only for the very upper elite of Roman society. In the film, Jesus and Pontius Pilate are speaking latin to each other, which is grossly inaccurate. And their pronunciation of the latin is attrocious.

    Another inaccuracy is in the hair. The jewish men of the time had short hair. And in the crucifixion, spikes are shown driven into Jesus' hands. WRONG! They drove the spikes into the wrist. If driven into the hands, they would simply tear through the flesh, they could not support the body on the cross. And as for the cross, Jesus would not have carried the entire cross, only the upper beam. The vertical posts were already erected on the site, the Romans simply replaced the crossbeams for each execution. And of course, Jesus would not have been wearing a loincloth, he would have been completely naked.

    You'd think if Mel wanted accuracy, he'd have at least done better on such simple things.
     
  10. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Yeah, let's not get carried away here. Again! :flaiming

    I keep hearing about "accuracy" and I am just trying to point out that this is not a well documented historical event. In fact, it's not even poorly documented. The events in the movie may well have taken place more or less within the parameters of the gospels. The Resurrection itself is the only really fantastic aspect beyond what would have normally occured in a Roman province of the first century. False accusation, brutality, torture and execution for political purpose were commonplace. And we know this because the Romans, and others, kept meticulous track of such things.

    All I'm saying is there is no Roman record of the events, nor any others except for the Bible. And even the accounts in the Bible vary significantly in what was said, who was in attendance at specific times, etc. So the call for "accuracy" or complaints of inaccuracy are pretty futile. Calling these events the "Passion" is an ironic double entendre. I'm afraid it not only refers to the suffering of Christ, but is also dependent on the passion of whomever is interpreting it. Until we have a time machine that can take us back to witness the events and record them to VHS or DVD, there cannot be "100% accuracy". And I've the feeling any such record might be suppressed anyway. :nono2:

    Mainly I'm concerned about the line between verifiable historical events and religious legend. And I am not being disrespectful here with the use of "legend". For this purpose, legend simply means an event that could have happened, but there is nor verifiable historical record or artifact to prove that it happened. In this case, the "Passion", as well as Jesus' life itself and the characters surrounding Him, there is no historical documentation. Pilate I believe is the only character that can be shown to have actually existed at the time.(maybe some of the Jewish Priests, I don't recall if they're named).
     
  11. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    The High Priest Caiaphas is well documented in Jewish history.
     
  12. Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    jon, I've read many of your postings over the past year or so and I respect your opinion and your right to express it. However, I must disagree with the continuous references you make to the Bible as being inaccurate. As an atheist and scholar, you're quite proficient at picking apart the scripture and identifying things that you believe to be inaccuracies and falsehoods. The thing you're missing in the process is the Holy Spirit to guide your understanding.

    "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 3:9

    When you read the Bible and try to fit it within the context of the world and society, it will never accurately fit. The Bible transcends the world and society (those are what must be fit within the context of the Bible).

    As far as the Bible being an historical account, I believe what the Bible says is what occurred. However, the Bible was not written for the purpose of covering every minute of every day with scientific precision. It was written by men inspired by God to provide the information God wanted us to know about himself.

    Bogy, you stated that you do not believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I disagree with that point also. If only bits and pieces of the Bible are the Word of God and others are the ramblings of men, it would be impossible to determine what was true and what was false. The entire text would be unreliable (even the words in red).

    "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16

    I am by no means a Biblical scholar and I attempt to learn something new from the Bible on a daily basis. I just wanted to add my thoughts to the discussion.
     
  13. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I believe it is possible to determine what is from God and what isn't, but it takes work and study.

    Trying to learn something new from the Bible daily is a great thing to do. There is more there to learn than any person can learn in this life.
     
  14. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Mahalo for the head's up Bogy. I thought there was something like that rumbling around in the back of my brain. Senile dementia, you know. Sometimes I recognize Caiaphas' face, I just can't recall his name. :icon_stup ;)
     
  15. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I respect your viewpoint too Tusk. But isn't this "Spirit" thing just an excuse for believing something you otherwise would never consider possible? What you're telling me is I can't accept all these fantastic stories is because I'm not possessed by a spirit, in this case, The Spirit. In any other context, you would consider being possessed by a spirit an evil thing, probably the work of Satan. Don't you see the irony here?

    You say you believe "what the Bible says is what occurred." I assume that means you believe the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and there was a great world-wide flood that covered snow-capped mountains, etc. I don't expect the Bible to explain "every minute of every day with scientific precision." I agree that's not it's purpose. But how do you explain the literally mountains of evidence that the Earth is 3-5 BILLION years old and there is not a shred of evidence for a flood of the magnitude described, not even close? How do you explain Adam being formed from a lump of clay and yet there is a direct DNA link from you and me to the spider on the wall and even the bacteria floating in your toilet?:barf: ;)

    These are just two examples. There's many more. And not just contradictions with science, contradictions with known history too. There is no evidence Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, nor that Moses freed them to wander in the desert for 40 years. The place Nazareth, widely believed to be where Jesus was raised, simply didn't exist until late in the second century at the earliest. Bogy can probably offer us an alternate explanation regarding "Jesus the Nazarene", which actually has nothing to do with Nazareth, in fact nothing to do with geography at all. It means The One of the Truth. Please correct me if in error here Bogy. Nevertheless, most Christian churches are content to let their followers believe Jesus was raised in a place that didn't exist when He was alive. To be fair, the churches themselves probably believe it. But in a way, that's even worse, isn't it?

    I could go on, but I won't. Suffice it to say that to accept the Bible literally, you have to ignore a great bulk of middle east history and archeology(maybe most of it), not to mention science. Frankly, I don't think there's a spirit(Holy or not) in this world, or otherworldly, that could convince me doing that would get me closer to the truth.
     
  16. Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    Where exactly are you getting this information? Everything I've looked at regarding archeology of the middle east indicates that Nazareth has been inhabited since at least 600 BC.

    "The site where Nazareth exists today was founded and settled between 600-900 BCE ...

    Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families. Pottery remains testify a continuous settlement during that period (600-900 BCE). After those years there was a break in settlement until about the year 200 BCE. It is believed that first-century Nazareth was a village comprised of approximately twenty-five families. Since then, the site of Nazareth has been consistently inhabited. The majority of the Archaeological finds consist of underground rooms (which were common because the soft chalk of Nazareth made it easy to hew caves), cisterns, and grain storage bins. The agricultural aspect of the city was discovered from the discoveries of oil mills and mill stones...

    The geographical area next to Nazareth included the lower Galilee and the Beti Netofa valleys. These regions were occupied by many small Jewish villages and towns settled by Hellenized Syrians. The largest of these towns was Tzippori, which was the capital of the Galilee until 18 BCE. This town is not mentioned in the New Testament despite being only a forty five minute walk from Nazareth."

    This information is from the Palestinian Return Centre based in the UK since I'm trying to be open minded and not look at Christian or Jewish websites.

    http://www.prc.org.uk/English/

    I just picked one of your issues to respond to.
     
  17. Strong

    Strong Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    603
    0
    Jul 30, 2003
    :gott:

    Right jon, the holy spirits (Jim, Jack, Grandpa) would in fact help your understanding.:goodjob:

    Arguing that the Christian Bible is the word of God is a little condescending and insulting to the 67% http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html or so population of the world that are not Christians. But I suppose a few more crusades will eventually convert the rest of us heathens to your one and only true belief.:rolleyes:
     
  18. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Back to the original subject:

    For many years, there have been people who have been in denial about the holocaust, usually out of religious or political motives. In fact, I beleive these guys are the ones who invented the term "revisionist history".

    These folks belong in the same group as the flat-earthers - holding beliefs that have been refuted time and time again by the facts.
     
  19. Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    Sorry, I didn't know that personal opinions and beliefs were so insulting and condescending to you. I guess I should stand the party line with the other 67%. Wait a minute, that other 67% believe the Koran is the word of God, or the Torah is the word of God, or science holds all of the answers for mankind. Assuming you're an atheist or agnostic (non-religious), I guess 86% of the world are pissing you off on a daily basis. :grin:

    It will be all right, :feelbette no one will disagree with you again.
     
  20. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    However, Tusk, if the Bible, in total, is the unerring word of God, why are there so many different Christian sects who disagree on what the words mean? Why are there contradictions within the books themselves? And why are you still having a milkshake with your hamburger?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page