Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: oSSkar wrote: A friend of mine told me about new research on a psychoactive, that makes you go in heavy coma, if you get vinegar in your digestion-system. Could it be that Jesus had taken this psychoactive? He was given a cloth soaked in vinegar in the cross. So he could've possibly gone to a coma then, gotten buried, then waking up in the grave, thinking he was back from the dead. :think:

Nobody survives the cross. It was fucking brutal.

It can take days to die on the cross. If your taken down in time, you'll survive.

It doesn't look that bad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

Unemployed Greasy Bastard wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: oSSkar wrote: A friend of mine told me about new research on a psychoactive, that makes you go in heavy coma, if you get vinegar in your digestion-system. Could it be that Jesus had taken this psychoactive? He was given a cloth soaked in vinegar in the cross. So he could've possibly gone to a coma then, gotten buried, then waking up in the grave, thinking he was back from the dead. :think:

Nobody survives the cross. It was fucking brutal.

It can take days to die on the cross. If your taken down in time, you'll survive.

It doesn't look that bad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

Watch The Passion of the Christ. More realistic, and it is the sexiest movie ever.

Gatocamera wrote: Unemployed Greasy Bastard wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: oSSkar wrote: A friend of mine told me about new research on a psychoactive, that makes you go in heavy coma, if you get vinegar in your digestion-system. Could it be that Jesus had taken this psychoactive? He was given a cloth soaked in vinegar in the cross. So he could've possibly gone to a coma then, gotten buried, then waking up in the grave, thinking he was back from the dead. :think:

Nobody survives the cross. It was fucking brutal.

It can take days to die on the cross. If your taken down in time, you'll survive.

It doesn't look that bad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

Watch The Passion of the Christ. More realistic, and it is the sexiest movie ever.

How do you get that fantasy fiction flic to be realistic?

Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Unemployed Greasy Bastard wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: oSSkar wrote: A friend of mine told me about new research on a psychoactive, that makes you go in heavy coma, if you get vinegar in your digestion-system. Could it be that Jesus had taken this psychoactive? He was given a cloth soaked in vinegar in the cross. So he could've possibly gone to a coma then, gotten buried, then waking up in the grave, thinking he was back from the dead. :think:

Nobody survives the cross. It was fucking brutal.

It can take days to die on the cross. If your taken down in time, you'll survive.

It doesn't look that bad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

Watch The Passion of the Christ. More realistic, and it is the sexiest movie ever.

Gatocamera wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Unemployed Greasy Bastard wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: oSSkar wrote: A friend of mine told me about new research on a psychoactive, that makes you go in heavy coma, if you get vinegar in your digestion-system. Could it be that Jesus had taken this psychoactive? He was given a cloth soaked in vinegar in the cross. So he could've possibly gone to a coma then, gotten buried, then waking up in the grave, thinking he was back from the dead. :think:

Nobody survives the cross. It was fucking brutal.

It can take days to die on the cross. If your taken down in time, you'll survive.

It doesn't look that bad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

Watch The Passion of the Christ. More realistic, and it is the sexiest movie ever.

"Gibson says the movie is his depiction of what he read in the Bible." The only historic material used in the making of that movie was the bible.

Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Unemployed Greasy Bastard wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: oSSkar wrote: A friend of mine told me about new research on a psychoactive, that makes you go in heavy coma, if you get vinegar in your digestion-system. Could it be that Jesus had taken this psychoactive? He was given a cloth soaked in vinegar in the cross. So he could've possibly gone to a coma then, gotten buried, then waking up in the grave, thinking he was back from the dead. :think:

Nobody survives the cross. It was fucking brutal.

It can take days to die on the cross. If your taken down in time, you'll survive.

It doesn't look that bad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

Watch The Passion of the Christ. More realistic, and it is the sexiest movie ever.

"Gibson says the movie is his depiction of what he read in the Bible." The only historic material used in the making of that movie was the bible.

The portrayal of it, stupid. Not the material.

Gatocamera wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Unemployed Greasy Bastard wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: oSSkar wrote: A friend of mine told me about new research on a psychoactive, that makes you go in heavy coma, if you get vinegar in your digestion-system. Could it be that Jesus had taken this psychoactive? He was given a cloth soaked in vinegar in the cross. So he could've possibly gone to a coma then, gotten buried, then waking up in the grave, thinking he was back from the dead. :think:

Nobody survives the cross. It was fucking brutal.

It can take days to die on the cross. If your taken down in time, you'll survive.

It doesn't look that bad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

Watch The Passion of the Christ. More realistic, and it is the sexiest movie ever.

"Gibson says the movie is his depiction of what he read in the Bible." The only historic material used in the making of that movie was the bible.

The portrayal of it, stupid. Not the material.

My point was that bad material, was used to make the portrayal.

Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Unemployed Greasy Bastard wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: oSSkar wrote: A friend of mine told me about new research on a psychoactive, that makes you go in heavy coma, if you get vinegar in your digestion-system. Could it be that Jesus had taken this psychoactive? He was given a cloth soaked in vinegar in the cross. So he could've possibly gone to a coma then, gotten buried, then waking up in the grave, thinking he was back from the dead. :think:

Nobody survives the cross. It was fucking brutal.

It can take days to die on the cross. If your taken down in time, you'll survive.

It doesn't look that bad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

Watch The Passion of the Christ. More realistic, and it is the sexiest movie ever.

"Gibson says the movie is his depiction of what he read in the Bible." The only historic material used in the making of that movie was the bible.

The portrayal of it, stupid. Not the material.

My point was that bad material, was used to make the portrayal.

But what do the historical limitations of the source material have to do with how realistically the film portrays crucifixion? I doubt the methods depicted in the film differ too much from reality.

The majority of the comments I read here on the bible look like childish antagonism. I am sorry to say it with so many intelligent people on here, but when you say that it has no historical value whatsoever it seems like it is a left-over from a rebellious attitude against religion from a teen who has listened to too much metal.

Sure, you don't have to believe the story of Jesus or any other story in the bible, but at least value its historical merit in the sense that it is a first-hand account, perhaps not of true stories that happened, but of the ways and culture of the day. How many books, folklore or not, are there to testify of how people were thinking in those days, how they interacted and negotiated, and what the fabric of society was like? It's not all stories about how folks walk on water and make it rain bread and all, there is a lot of culture and wisdom from those days in there. Even the atheist should respect that for the insight that it gives us in the ancient times, but what do I see here?

"Crucifiction was pretty brutal, you know, as can be seen in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ."

"That is unreliable, that is Mel Gibson's interpretation of the Bible, that was his source."

"Oh, the bible. Never mind.

49th Grandson wrote: The majority of the comments I read here on the bible look like childish antagonism. I am sorry to say it with so many intelligent people on here, but when you say that it has no historical value whatsoever it seems like it is a left-over from a rebellious attitude against religion from a teen who has listened to too much metal.

Sure, you don't have to believe the story of Jesus or any other story in the bible, but at least value its historical merit in the sense that it is a first-hand account, perhaps not of true stories that happened, but of the ways and culture of the day. How many books, folklore or not, are there to testify of how people were thinking in those days, how they interacted and negotiated, and what the fabric of society was like? It's not all stories about how folks walk on water and make it rain bread and all, there is a lot of culture and wisdom from those days in there. Even the atheist should respect that for the insight that it gives us in the ancient times, but what do I see here?

"Crucifiction was pretty brutal, you know, as can be seen in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ."

"That is unreliable, that is Mel Gibson's interpretation of the Bible, that was his source."

"Oh, the bible. Never mind.

The bible was put together by some council quite some time after the actual events. Hence it's hardly a first-hand account, given the amount of editing that obviously (or at least most likely) was done. Even the original stories, if there are any, won't be quite believable either with the walking on water - and don't give me any "it's all symbolic", because no one thought so until the last couple of hundreds of years.

The council discarded some books which could have made it harder for them to use the bible as a means of controlling the populace. Those books are for the larger part found and published these days... of course, there is probably a lot more that hasn't been discovered or published, but that aside.

To dispel what seems like a misinterpretation of my post: I was talking about the parts of the stories that didn't include the supernatural. Anything that may have been made up afterward (if you will) doesn't alter the portrayal of the culture and society that it gives, including means of torture or punishment, which is pretty reliable. If Jesus went ice-skating the next chapter, that's lovely, but the historical context remains the same.

Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Unemployed Greasy Bastard wrote: Tehz0mqz wrote: Gatocamera wrote: oSSkar wrote: A friend of mine told me about new research on a psychoactive, that makes you go in heavy coma, if you get vinegar in your digestion-system. Could it be that Jesus had taken this psychoactive? He was given a cloth soaked in vinegar in the cross. So he could've possibly gone to a coma then, gotten buried, then waking up in the grave, thinking he was back from the dead. :think:

Nobody survives the cross. It was fucking brutal.

It can take days to die on the cross. If your taken down in time, you'll survive.

It doesn't look that bad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

Watch The Passion of the Christ. More realistic, and it is the sexiest movie ever.

"Gibson says the movie is his depiction of what he read in the Bible." The only historic material used in the making of that movie was the bible.

The portrayal of it, stupid. Not the material.

My point was that bad material, was used to make the portrayal.

And I just said: NOT the material. The crucifixion was pretty elaborate and if I had to guess, I'd say der Fuhrer Gibson did a good bit of research into it... or had other people do research... either way, research was probably done.

49th Grandson wrote: The majority of the comments I read here on the bible look like childish antagonism. I am sorry to say it with so many intelligent people on here, but when you say that it has no historical value whatsoever it seems like it is a left-over from a rebellious attitude against religion from a teen who has listened to too much metal.

Sure, you don't have to believe the story of Jesus or any other story in the bible, but at least value its historical merit in the sense that it is a first-hand account, perhaps not of true stories that happened, but of the ways and culture of the day. How many books, folklore or not, are there to testify of how people were thinking in those days, how they interacted and negotiated, and what the fabric of society was like? It's not all stories about how folks walk on water and make it rain bread and all, there is a lot of culture and wisdom from those days in there. Even the atheist should respect that for the insight that it gives us in the ancient times, but what do I see here?

"Crucifiction was pretty brutal, you know, as can be seen in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ."

"That is unreliable, that is Mel Gibson's interpretation of the Bible, that was his source."

"Oh, the bible. Never mind.

Are you a christian?

49th Grandson wrote: The council discarded some books which could have made it harder for them to use the bible as a means of controlling the populace. Those books are for the larger part found and published these days... of course, there is probably a lot more that hasn't been discovered or published, but that aside.

To dispel what seems like a misinterpretation of my post: I was talking about the parts of the stories that didn't include the supernatural. Anything that may have been made up afterward (if you will) doesn't alter the portrayal of the culture and society that it gives, including means of torture or punishment, which is pretty reliable. If Jesus went ice-skating the next chapter, that's lovely, but the historical context remains the same.

What I am saying is that those depictions of said "culture" are highly unreliable, extremely subjective to their authors and were most likely edited by said council as well. The bible is no reliable source as a documentation of Jewish society at the time, since it is so politically loaded and most likely changed/transcribed in various ways. The OT was also most likely handed down orally from generation to generation before being written down; and is thus hardly a reliable source. The only thing the Bible actually expresses is how that Roman council wanted us to view the world.

Tehz0mqz wrote: 49th Grandson wrote: The majority of the comments I read here on the bible look like childish antagonism. I am sorry to say it with so many intelligent people on here, but when you say that it has no historical value whatsoever it seems like it is a left-over from a rebellious attitude against religion from a teen who has listened to too much metal.

Sure, you don't have to believe the story of Jesus or any other story in the bible, but at least value its historical merit in the sense that it is a first-hand account, perhaps not of true stories that happened, but of the ways and culture of the day. How many books, folklore or not, are there to testify of how people were thinking in those days, how they interacted and negotiated, and what the fabric of society was like? It's not all stories about how folks walk on water and make it rain bread and all, there is a lot of culture and wisdom from those days in there. Even the atheist should respect that for the insight that it gives us in the ancient times, but what do I see here?

"Crucifiction was pretty brutal, you know, as can be seen in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ."

"That is unreliable, that is Mel Gibson's interpretation of the Bible, that was his source."

"Oh, the bible. Never mind.

The bibel as a historical text is desputed. http://www.truthbeknown.com/bibleflunks.htm

So what? That wasn't his point. There's no black and white when it comes to historical sources. They all have some value and some limitations. It is obvious that the Bible is not without its limitations, but you can't dismiss the whole text as useless because it is disputed. The Bible is a valuable historical source.