Oh No! Not Again!

[Skwim]

I couldnt possibly concieve in my mind someone referring to themselves as a scholar, when their words contradict Gods written truth.
I guess its true what John Lennon wrote about those types---( Words are flying out like endless rain into a paper cup, they slither while they pass and slip away across the universe.)

From the link.

"As William Doehring explains in the Examiner, the film is based on the work of prominent Biblical theologians such as Rudolf Bultman and Raymond Brown, and the members of the Jesus Seminar, a group of biblical scholars whose research focuses on constructing an accurate portrait of the historical Jesus, one who was more ethicist and radical prophet than Son of God."
​

 

[BBTimeless]

Gee, I'd better get out my baseball bat and start rioting. Oh, wait, I don't do that. If people want to see this movie, they can go right ahead. But I wouldn't waste 10 cents on it.

I'll get the pitchforks if you grab the torches!

 

[outhouse]

Do you have links for that? I want to know why they think so and how they found out about such a thing since they were not there and there is hardly an evidence to suggest so.

there is hardly any evidence for jesus at all to begin with.

we pretty much know the infancy and childhood part of the gospels are mythology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera

it is a fact no one really knows as there is zero historicity for this part of his life

http://rovemonteux.net/2010/01/15/mary-and-the-roman-soldiers/

 

[CynthiaCypher]

From the link.

"As William Doehring explains in the Examiner, the film is based on the work of prominent Biblical theologians such as Rudolf Bultman and Raymond Brown, and the members of the Jesus Seminar, a group of biblical scholars whose research focuses on constructing an accurate portrait of the historical Jesus, one who was more ethicist and radical prophet than Son of God."
​

Ok I respect Bultman, but why does Verhoeven want to put in a farting scene?

 

[fallingblood]

From the link.

"As William Doehring explains in the Examiner, the film is based on the work of prominent Biblical theologians such as Rudolf Bultman and Raymond Brown, and the members of the Jesus Seminar, a group of biblical scholars whose research focuses on constructing an accurate portrait of the historical Jesus, one who was more ethicist and radical prophet than Son of God."
​

I find this quite funny, as I don't think anyone on the Jesus Seminar, I know for sure both Brown and Bultman, think that Jesus was born out of rape. Such an idea really is a minority view, and even James Tabor, who entertains the idea, does not make a definite stance, and really suggests we can't know.



Even his claims that Jesus didn't do miracles, really isn't historically accurate either. Now, Jesus probably didn't have supernatural powers, and his miracles were like any other miracle at that time (as in, simply thought to be a miracle), but most scholars would agree that Jesus was believed to have been a miracle worker.

Now, I have no problem with this guy making some movie. He has the right to. But to even try to label it as scholarly, that simply is insulting.

 

[Skwim]

Ok I respect Bultman, but why does Verhoeven want to put in a farting scene?

Even his claims that Jesus didn't do miracles, really isn't historically accurate either.

Really? Just what extra-Biblical evidence is there?

but most scholars would agree that Jesus was believed to have been a miracle worker.

Without a doubt.

Now, I have no problem with this guy making some movie. He has the right to. But to even try to label it as scholarly, that simply is insulting.

I didn't see that he labeled it as scholarly, but I did see that he based it on "the work of prominent Biblical theologians and . . . the members of the Jesus Seminar."

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Really? Just what extra-Biblical evidence is there?

Well he certainly performed exorcisms which would seem like miracles to the people of his day.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I find this quite funny, as I don't think anyone on the Jesus Seminar, I know for sure both Brown and Bultman, think that Jesus was born out of rape. Such an idea really is a minority view, and even James Tabor, who entertains the idea, does not make a definite stance, and really suggests we can't know.



Even his claims that Jesus didn't do miracles, really isn't historically accurate either. Now, Jesus probably didn't have supernatural powers, and his miracles were like any other miracle at that time (as in, simply thought to be a miracle), but most scholars would agree that Jesus was believed to have been a miracle worker.

Now, I have no problem with this guy making some movie. He has the right to. But to even try to label it as scholarly, that simply is insulting.

Believe it or not Dr. Verhoeven is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar. I was shocked.

 

[fallingblood]

Really? Just what extra-Biblical evidence is there?

The first extra-Biblical reference to Jesus is Josephus. In Josephus, the portion of the TF that is considered authentic, Jesus is talked about in terms of miracles (or a doer of wonderful works).

 

[fallingblood]

Believe it or not Dr. Verhoeven is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar. I was shocked.

That actually makes me loose respect for the Jesus Seminar. I have more of a background in Historical Jesus Research then he does, and I know I'm not even close to be qualified. Well, maybe I actually am if he is.

 

[TashaN]

there is hardly any evidence for jesus at all to begin with.

we pretty much know the infancy and childhood part of the gospels are mythology.

Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it is a fact no one really knows as there is zero historicity for this part of his life

Mary and the Roman Soldiers « Rove Monteux

If there is hardly an evidence he ever existed on the first place so why to speculate that a roman guard was the posssible father?! It doesn't make any sense! It's just a baseless accusation with no benefit at all except hatred for Jesus followers.

 

[fallingblood]

If there is hardly an evidence he ever existed on the first place so why to speculate that a roman guard was the posssible father?! It doesn't make any sense! It's just a baseless accusation with no benefit at all except hatred for Jesus followers.

I personally think that is just what skeptics do. They make claims upon claims and in the end, they don't make much sense. And usually, they aren't supported by what actual scholars think.

Like the Roman Guard idea. James Tabor does mention it. He relates that there were those in the first or second century that believed that to be true (for instance, we have Celsus who makes some sort of claim in that regards). But Tabor also doesn't state that it is a true story or that we should accept it as factual.

As a side note, many scholars actually accept that there is quite a bit of evidence (at least for that time) for Jesus.

 

[crocusj]

Mr. Showgirls has said he wants to put in a scene of Jesus farting. I kid not.

Depends how it was done. Is there not a place for a film about a man who became a god? As in an actual man of his times. Obviously he can cry and love and fight but can he also not sit around with his mates and laugh and joke and fart too? If a film is going to portray him as a man how else will it do this?

 

[Me Myself]

Mr. Showgirls has said he wants to put in a scene of Jesus farting. I kid not.

If Jesus did not farted, smelled it and told his friends about it, he was not fully man.

Maybe fully metrosexual though.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Depends how it was done. Is there not a place for a film about a man who became a god? As in an actual man of his times. Obviously he can cry and love and fight but can he also not sit around with his mates and laugh and joke and fart too? If a film is going to portray him as a man how else will it do this?

It's gratuitous. If you want to portray Jesus has fully human you can do it tastefully. Now this movie is sounding like an episode of Jack***

 

[kjw47]

From the link.

"As William Doehring explains in the Examiner, the film is based on the work of prominent Biblical theologians such as Rudolf Bultman and Raymond Brown, and the members of the Jesus Seminar, a group of biblical scholars whose research focuses on constructing an accurate portrait of the historical Jesus, one who was more ethicist and radical prophet than Son of God."
​

They may call themselves scholars or theologians but Gods word calls them--Blind guides. Radical prophets dont cure the blind and the lame and cast out demons at will, nor do they bring the dead back to life. Bultman and Brown display the darkness where they reside. They sit there and call God a liar and have the kahunas to call themselves theologians. Some will listen though.

 

[crocusj]

It's gratuitous. If you want to portray Jesus has fully human you can do it tastefully. Now this movie is sounding like an episode of Jack***

Since when were humans (men) tasteful? It may well be that the film lacks the reverence that some might expect but is reverence or acceptance as a man the aim?
Is it gratuitous? What would the film gain by this? I would expect a poor film by this maker but surely the inclusion of farting would only be for the purpose of showing that Jesus was a man like other men.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If there is hardly an evidence he ever existed on the first place so why to speculate that a roman guard was the posssible father?! It doesn't make any sense! It's just a baseless accusation with no benefit at all except hatred for Jesus followers.

Why would it be an insult to Christianity if Jesus were the product of rape?

Do you disrepect children born of rape? Do you think they are somehow less than the proven son of a king?

 

[photvid]

<Somewhat OT>
What's it with the "Peter" Verhoeven thing? Is it meant to be an in-joke? It's Paul Verhoeven. Also, equating him with "Showgirls" doesn't do the man justice. The man produced fan-tas-tic movies: Black Book, Robocop, Starshop Troopers (yes, it *is* a fantastic movie).
</OT>

 

[CynthiaCypher]

<Somewhat OT>
What's it with the "Peter" Verhoeven thing? Is it meant to be an in-joke? It's Paul Verhoeven. Also, equating him with "Showgirls" doesn't do the man justice. The man produced fan-tas-tic movies: Black Book, Robocop, Starshop Troopers (yes, it *is* a fantastic movie).
</OT>

Maybe Showgirls is the reason he is making an even more controversial movie...to distract attention away from Showgirls.

By the way...Starshop Troopers sucked.