NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh Oh Oh

I can't wait. I can't wait. I can't wait.

On 06 06 06 the movie The Beadt will be released. I'm guessing scores upon scores of Christians will be protesting it.

It would be so wonderful to see Christians make a stink about the movie.

The movie will be about how Jesus never existed.

http://www.thebeastmovie.com/trailer/index.html

Oh my god, I predict a shitstorm the likes of which American movies haven't seen for a good long time...

It will be awesome to see so many fundie Christians pissed off. Does that make me a sadist?:p

I wonder what kind of distribution this is going to get.

I imagine it'd be as bad as any other smug movie like it. Or if it will come off as a cut rate DiVinci Code with Left Behind production asthetics.

I'll probably get to see it, we have more art screens than normal screens. I don't know that I care.

I'm an atheist, preaching to the converted on that seems sorta weird...

Looks about as interesting as the upcoming X-Men movie. But hell I'll probably see it anyways.

I thought people stopped getting upset about this kind of crap back when Black Sabbath was still contraversial instead of just old.

I bet people would be protesting George Burns in Oh God You Devil if it came out in these years. Good old George. That man rocked.

When her father, a biblical scholar, mysteriously disappears, a Christian high-school student named Danielle investigates. She discovers that he had stumbled across a cover-up of Christianity's best-kept secret: That Jesus Christ never existed. Now that she possesses proof of this dangerous fact, Danielle confronts two strong forces: A band of fundamentalist Christians who will stop at nothing to suppress the truth, and her own desire for Jesus Christ to be real. The Beast dives into factual territory well-explored by scholars but largely hidden from the view of the public.

LOL

Can anybody really take this seriously? It looks like a piss-poor movie made exclusively to piss off conservative christians; outside of that, it doesn't have that much of an appeal. The underlying plot is laughable; a high-school student just happens to find irrefutable proof that Jesus didn't exist? What kind of proof is that, I wonder.:rolleyes:

Personally, I don't see the conservative christain community giving this guy any mind. They'll probably never even know this movie will exist, and if they do they're just as likely to brush the movie off.

(sorry to write a long post on a thread like this... just figured I'd write in my two cents)

...so all Hebrew and Roman records from the era are forgeries? From witness testimony to execution records? Really now.

...so all Hebrew and Roman records from the era are forgeries? From witness testimony to execution records? Really now.

Honestly :) ;)

I think most of the New Testement when it conserns Jesus is fabricated.

Damn, and I thought this thread was about X3.

Damn, and I thought this thread was about X3.
I thought it was about a small fishing town terrorized by a giant squid...

Damn, and I thought this thread was about X3.
Weird i thought it was about X-Men III and it was about the big hairy blue guy.

An indie movie out of a tiny indie label written and directed by a rookie indie film maker with what sounds like an incredibly boring plot. I doubt this one will be seen outside of film festivals.

...so all Hebrew and Roman records from the era are forgeries? From witness testimony to execution records? Really now.

Ah...what records would those be? I've heard people claim "Roman Records" as regards the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, several times, but have never found any actual cases of this being substantiated. To my knowledge the only record of Jesus is in the Bible.

So, is this sort of a religious version of the Blair Witch Project then?

Ah...what records would those be? I've heard people claim "Roman Records" as regards the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, several times, but have never found any actual cases of this being substantiated. To my knowledge the only record of Jesus is in the Bible.

The only Roman reference I'm aware of was from Tacitus, however there are two parts of the brief passage which suggest that he was merely reporting the claims made by Christians at the time.

I thought it was about a small fishing town terrorized by a giant squid...


I read that book and liked it for mild entertainment.

The TV movie sucked.

Reading the synopsis (http://www.thebeastmovie.com/about/index.html), I can imagine it being one of two things: a tale of internal struggle in a girl, while the world around her changes; or a self-wanking attempt by a director to convert people to his religious persuasion.

Either way I'll likely not see. Though, that isn't saying much as I haven't seen a movie since "Star Wars Episode: III"

*adjusts his lightsaber*

...so all Hebrew and Roman records from the era are forgeries? From witness testimony to execution records? Really now.
There's more convincing riffs on that.
A particularly good one (by Alan Moore) reveals that the head Baphomet worshipped by the Knights Templar was actually Christ's head, which is offered as proof that he didn't bodily ascend into heaven...

Dodecapod: wasn't one of Constantine's successor's first actions to have all of the records from the census of Jerusalem and Nazareth in 33 BC destroyed?

Oh Oh Oh

I can't wait. I can't wait. I can't wait.

On 06 06 06 the movie The Beadt will be released. I'm guessing scores upon scores of Christians will be protesting it.

It would be so wonderful to see Christians make a stink about the movie.

The movie will be about how Jesus never existed.

http://www.thebeastmovie.com/trailer/index.html

I suspect there will be a fuss far out of the scope of the movie itself.

Apparently, it is okay to make movies that promote this one religion... but somehow 'bad form' to make movies that might question it.

I suspect there will be a fuss far out of the scope of the movie itself.

Apparently, it is okay to make movies that promote this one religion... but somehow 'bad form' to make movies that might question it.

Well let me put it this way, what if a movie was made where Mohammad was proved never to exist, and that the Al KaBah (The big stone block thing in Mecca) was an alien spaceship or something weird like that.

Well let me put it this way, what if a movie was made where Mohammad was proved never to exist, and that the Al KaBah (The big stone block thing in Mecca) was an alien spaceship or something weird like that.

What if?

Atheists are consistently 'abused', if you will, by being forced to endure stories about potentially fictional 'gods'.

How is it okay for the Christians to spread their propoganda, but not okay for anyone to refute it?

Hypocrisy, much?

Well let me put it this way, what if a movie was made where Mohammad was proved never to exist, and that the Al KaBah (The big stone block thing in Mecca) was an alien spaceship or something weird like that.
There was one guy did something similar. He had to hide for a bit. But then, he didn't get all that warm a reception from the christians either when he dared to suggest that Jesus wasn't super stoked to be nailed up...

So it's safe to say religious people flip out when you question thier faith. At least the two you've juxtaposed.

What if?

Atheists are consistently 'abused', if you will, by being forced to endure stories about potentially fictional 'gods'.

How is it okay for the Christians to spread their propoganda, but not okay for anyone to refute it?

Hypocrisy, much?

My favorite part-

No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

And religious folk wonder why sometimes we get a little fuckin' agitated...

I read that book and liked it for mild entertainment.

The TV movie sucked.
I think I saw that one: it was just Jaws with a big squid, wasn't it?
I rather lost interest after the Police Chief and the squid expert head out in a nutcase's boat after the squid...

And religious folk wonder why sometimes we get a little fuckin' agitated...

Indeed. And, this guy claims a mandate. Scary, really.

Not a citizen BECAUSE you are an Atheist?

Guy needs to READ his bible, for a change.... Christians are supposed to be 'citizens of heaven'. By my reckoning, that would mean ONLY Atheists can be true patriots... anyone else is dividing their loyalties.

And religious folk wonder why sometimes we get a little fuckin' agitated...

Hey, it's not just you atheists that get pissed when GHWB (or his kid) starts badmouthing atheists.

Indeed. And, this guy claims a mandate. Scary, really.

Not a citizen BECAUSE you are an Atheist?

Guy needs to READ his bible, for a change.... Christians are supposed to be 'citizens of heaven'. By my reckoning, that would mean ONLY Atheists can be true patriots... anyone else is dividing their loyalties.
To be fair, it's his son that thinks he has a mandate. He thinks he has a good retirement...(HW is the dad)

could be fun, i like the release date...

to me it sounds like a da vinci code wanna be....... i mean a secret was found by someone and it could rock all the christan world. sounds alot like a play off the da vinci code to me......but it does look sort of interesting

I agree it will just be another way for the Christians to agrue with Darwin's Theory and how we came from apes.



Christians:) :sniper:

Christians:) :sniper:
Easy there slugger.

I heard about this movie I think over a year ago. I've been waiting ever since. I believe Christians will protest it. There are a lot that just go Jesus-crazy over little things.

To be fair, it's his son that thinks he has a mandate. He thinks he has a good retirement...(HW is the dad)

I see it now... I blanked the initial the first time...

I'm not entirely sure they aren't clones, anyway.... :)

Dodecapod: wasn't one of Constantine's successor's first actions to have all of the records from the census of Jerusalem and Nazareth in 33 BC destroyed?

I've looked up the incident (took a while, my area of expertise is Modern History), and yeah, a lot of the records went missing about then. No way to know why, though. A pity; I'd quite like to believe Jesus was a real man, not just a figment.

What if?

Atheists are consistently 'abused', if you will, by being forced to endure stories about potentially fictional 'gods'.

How is it okay for the Christians to spread their propoganda, but not okay for anyone to refute it?

Hypocrisy, much?
oh, must've missed the firestorm that the Christians put up for Dogma, the OH GOD Movies, Twist of Fate, Heaven Can Wait...

there have been alot of movies that are not "Truly Religous" in nature. they only "speak out" when it's a movie that they truly want seen, (Passion of Christ, Omega Code) or ones that try to pass themselves as "Scripture-True" when they are not (Last Temptation of Christ.)

"The Beast" sounds like it's an attempt to gain fame through controversy, no more, no less.

oh and the Idea that Athiests are constantly Abused by being forced to endure "fictional stories" is crap and you know it. Some outspoken Athiest always pull this s#!t when in reality it's different. Count how many movies Glorify non-religous ideals vs religous ones. Count how many books, music, even symbols. no one complains when science or any Non-Religous topic/symbol is displayed or talked about in church, but let one happen in school or in a workplace and people cry Lawsuit.

I heard about this movie I think over a year ago. I've been waiting ever since. I believe Christians will protest it. There are a lot that just go Jesus-crazy over little things.

I think the majority of Christians will accept that the guy has the right to make the film and that everyone else has the right to watch it. I also think that quite a few Christians will go to see it if only to try and pick holes in the theory. While a minority may protest I doubt the backing of most Christians will be behind them (in Europe at least, I can't speak for America).

oh, must've missed the firestorm that the Christians put up for Dogma, the OH GOD Movies, Twist of Fate, Heaven Can Wait...

there have been alot of movies that are not "Truly Religous" in nature. they only "speak out" when it's a movie that they truly want seen, (Passion of Christ, Omega Code) or ones that try to pass themselves as "Scripture-True" when they are not (Last Temptation of Christ.)

"The Beast" sounds like it's an attempt to gain fame through controversy, no more, no less.

Agreed for the most part.

oh and the Idea that Athiests are constantly Abused by being forced to endure "fictional stories" is crap and you know it. Some outspoken Athiest always pull this s#!t when in reality it's different. Count how many movies Glorify non-religous ideals vs religous ones. Count how many books, music, even symbols. no one complains when science or any Non-Religous topic/symbol is displayed or talked about in church, but let one happen in school or in a workplace and people cry Lawsuit.

You seem to be equating absence of religion with Atheism, this is not the case. A better comparison would be the number of films glorifying Atheism vs. films glorifying religion, I'm guessing that the latter would hold a large majority.

Churches are owned by the religous group that runs it so they have the right to decide what is allowed in there, if they want to ban science in their church then fine but if they want to discuss science then that is equally fine, the congregation go of their own free will and if they don't like what goes on they don't have to go.

Schools are state owned and so are maintained by tax-payers' money so they don't promote religion, simple. They can (and should) teach about various religions but they don't teach one to be true. I don't know what you're refering to when you talk about lawsuits for religion in workplaces but if you could elaborate then I'll try and respond.

oh, must've missed the firestorm that the Christians put up for Dogma, the OH GOD Movies, Twist of Fate, Heaven Can Wait...

there have been alot of movies that are not "Truly Religous" in nature. they only "speak out" when it's a movie that they truly want seen, (Passion of Christ, Omega Code) or ones that try to pass themselves as "Scripture-True" when they are not (Last Temptation of Christ.)

"The Beast" sounds like it's an attempt to gain fame through controversy, no more, no less.

oh and the Idea that Athiests are constantly Abused by being forced to endure "fictional stories" is crap and you know it. Some outspoken Athiest always pull this s#!t when in reality it's different. Count how many movies Glorify non-religous ideals vs religous ones. Count how many books, music, even symbols. no one complains when science or any Non-Religous topic/symbol is displayed or talked about in church, but let one happen in school or in a workplace and people cry Lawsuit.

Perhaps you live in a more permissive area... or perhaps you don't read some of the more conservative Christian media.

Where I live (in Georgia) there WAS a big fuss about Dogma. We got complaints for carrying "Life of Brian" at the video store I worked at.

Cinemas around here wouldn't show the first Harry Potter movie (although they show them now, since they are on of the few franchises that make any money.

All of the conservative christian media my in-laws receive, ranted for pages about banning (yes, believe it or not, banning) Harry Potter films, and, of all things "Chocolat"...

Maybe you missed the shitstorm where you are. Around here, groups gave away videos about the satanism in movies like Harry Potter, and how it was going to harm kids, and cause them to join Satanistic cults.


Next point, get off your high horse, my friend.

What the hell is a 'non-religious ideal'... and how is it different to a religious one? This sounds like another one of those cases where someone attempts to argue that you can't be moral, without being religious.

And, why do I suspect, when you say "religious", what you REALLY mean is "Christian"?

On the subject of 'symbols'... I can't think of any that fit the bill. Unless you mean the McDonalds golden arches, perhaps... or maybe the Nazi flag. And, to be honest, I think MOST people would be a little wary about finding that particular flag in their church, school, workplace.

Ah...what records would those be? I've heard people claim "Roman Records" as regards the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, several times, but have never found any actual cases of this being substantiated. To my knowledge the only record of Jesus is in the Bible.
Execution records! :P The Romans were meticulous about this. Also, there are a lot of records talking about how the Pharisees were worried about Jesus leading uprisings and such.

Execution records! :P The Romans were meticulous about this. Also, there are a lot of records talking about how the Pharisees were worried about Jesus leading uprisings and such.

I don't get how any of this proves that he was anything more than a man. There probably was a man named Jesus of Nazareth, but no one knows for sure that he was more than a man. Peope today completely shun the idea of the son of god now and that he's the only one or whatever. They call him and his followers crazy. This might possibly have happened back then too.

Execution records! :P The Romans were meticulous about this. Also, there are a lot of records talking about how the Pharisees were worried about Jesus leading uprisings and such.

Which is curious - because there are no execution records that could be considered evidence in the case of this Jesus fellow.

Indeed, the four "Gospels" can' even agree on all the details.

I'd like to see you provide evidence of execution records, or Pharasic discussions... as would pretty much the rest of the world... since there have been none found so far.

I don't get how any of this proves that he was anything more than a man. There probably was a man named Jesus of Nazareth, but no one knows for sure that he was more than a man. Peope today completely shun the idea of the son of god now and that he's the only one or whatever. They call him and his followers crazy. This might possibly have happened back then too.

I'm not arguing whether he was divine or not; I'm simply stating that He existed. And Grave_in_Idle, let me look 'em up for you...

I'm not arguing whether he was divine or not; I'm simply stating that He existed. And Grave_in_Idle, let me look 'em up for you...

I'd be glad to see them.

The earliest (non-Bible) records I have ever seen (in 20 years of looking), have been those of Tacitus and Josephus.... neither of whom were 'there' at the time. Indeed, Josephus was in the right area, but far too late to have met Jesus... or even, most likely, any person whi might have MET Jesus.

If one carefully looks at Josephus, two things become apparent fairly quickly, One: the style and content do not match the surroundings... thus, many believe that Josephus has been heavily edited at a later date; Two: Josephus doesn't talk about a Christ directly.... but about followers of a man theyc alled Christ.

I really would like to see some independent and contemporary evidence.

Besides the two you mentioned
(Josephus, by the way, had his work corrupted, but most historians still believe the core of it is accurate---http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html#reference)

I've managed to find Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, both of whom are unlikely to have made up Christ due to their easily visible hatred of His followers. I'm still looking for the execution records, but I know I can find them, because the Romans were meticulous about such things.

Ah, and here's another good argument from a scholar who studies such things.

Professor Robert Van Voorst asks why, “if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.”

Besides the two you mentioned
(Josephus, by the way, had his work corrupted, but most historians still believe the core of it is accurate---http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html#reference)

I've managed to find Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, both of whom are unlikely to have made up Christ due to their easily visible hatred of His followers. I'm still looking for the execution records, but I know I can find them, because the Romans were meticulous about such things.

Ah, and here's another good argument from a scholar who studies such things.

Suetonius and Pliny are still considerably later, though... and far from the type of evidence you were claiming. They are 'commentators'.

Actually, most historians suspect that MOST of the 'Jesus' -type material in Josephus work, is faked.

I suspect you can look all you like, but there are no records of the crucifixion of Jesus, or Yeshua Christus, or whichever name you wish to search for.

Regarding the last point:Professor Robert Van Voorst asks why, “if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.”

This is actually fairly straightforward... the Jews did not waste their efforts on pointing out how false the roman gods were, or greek gods, or mithraism, or any number of other cults or religions at the time.

Christianity is no different - it is obviously false (to the Jew) because it places another god in the picture... evn though Christians argue it was the 'son of god, and god incarnate'.

I've looked up the incident (took a while, my area of expertise is Modern History), and yeah, a lot of the records went missing about then. No way to know why, though. A pity; I'd quite like to believe Jesus was a real man, not just a figment.
Same here: if somebody resembling that was around at the time, then he was a truly admirable social reformer. (The fairystory elements I'm less keen on.)

Perhaps you live in a more permissive area... or perhaps you don't read some of the more conservative Christian media.

Where I live (in Georgia) there WAS a big fuss about Dogma. We got complaints for carrying "Life of Brian" at the video store I worked at.

Cinemas around here wouldn't show the first Harry Potter movie (although they show them now, since they are on of the few franchises that make any money.

All of the conservative christian media my in-laws receive, ranted for pages about banning (yes, believe it or not, banning) Harry Potter films, and, of all things "Chocolat"...

Maybe you missed the shitstorm where you are. Around here, groups gave away videos about the satanism in movies like Harry Potter, and how it was going to harm kids, and cause them to join Satanistic cults.


Next point, get off your high horse, my friend.

What the hell is a 'non-religious ideal'... and how is it different to a religious one? This sounds like another one of those cases where someone attempts to argue that you can't be moral, without being religious.

And, why do I suspect, when you say "religious", what you REALLY mean is "Christian"?

On the subject of 'symbols'... I can't think of any that fit the bill. Unless you mean the McDonalds golden arches, perhaps... or maybe the Nazi flag. And, to be honest, I think MOST people would be a little wary about finding that particular flag in their church, school, workplace.


I thought said stuff may be going on. Though up here in NY state we have heard not a lick of it. Man you live in one retarded state.

Absolutely brilliant marketing campaign. The movie could be animated by a febrille child with half a set of crayons and it'll sell millions of tickets. The christies will protest (if the producers are lucky) and a million Christ Haters (yeah tell me that's not a huge demographic. I'm an agnostic but I'm not asleep FFS) will get in line to buy tickets and pre-order the extended version on CD.

Absolutely brilliant marketing campaign. The movie could be animated by a febrille child with half a set of crayons and it'll sell millions of tickets. The christies will protest (if the producers are lucky) and a million Christ Haters (yeah tell me that's not a huge demographic. I'm an agnostic but I'm not asleep FFS) will get in line to buy tickets and pre-order the extended version on CD.
The Christians will indeed protest: what else do they ever do when a movie or record they disdain emerges?

Christians:) :sniper:

Hmm, that could be interpreted as a direct threat to Christians, stating that because of their beliefs you believe they all should be shot, which technically constitutes as flaming.

Hmm, that could be interpreted as a direct threat to Christians, stating that because of their beliefs you believe they all should be shot, which technically constitutes as flaming.
Sounds more like a sane and reasonable argument, to me.
(Or at least closer than any of the Christians here have ever managed, while whining about evolutionists.)

I've managed to find Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, both of whom are unlikely to have made up Christ due to their easily visible hatred of His followers. I'm still looking for the execution records, but I know I can find them, because the Romans were meticulous about such things.



The Romans were, indeed, meticulous regarding records, but that doesn't mean those records survived the fall of their empire. Also, technically, it wasn'tthe Romans who executed Jesus, according to the Bible - it was the Judean government, using Roman troops to do the deed. So, the Romans would likely have left the recording of the proceedings to Herod and his people.

Which would be bad enough, but worse still, the Judean Revolt was less than 30 years away at the point of Jesus' death. One of the more notable actions of that revolt was the razing of Jerusalem to the ground, making the lack of surviving records quite understandable...

Sounds more like a sane and reasonable argument, to me.
(Or at least closer than any of the Christians here have ever managed, while whining about evolutionists.)

Are you refering to my statement? Or his little immature assault.

The Romans were, indeed, meticulous regarding records, but that doesn't mean those records survived the fall of their empire. Also, technically, it wasn'tthe Romans who executed Jesus, according to the Bible - it was the Judean government, using Roman troops to do the deed. So, the Romans would likely have left the recording of the proceedings to Herod and his people.

Which would be bad enough, but worse still, the Judean Revolt was less than 30 years away at the point of Jesus' death. One of the more notable actions of that revolt was the razing of Jerusalem to the ground, making the lack of surviving records quite understandable...

Plus, of course, the very real possibility that the whole thing is just a story, and that there never were any records, because the events never really transpired....

The Christians will indeed protest: what else do they ever do when a movie or record they disdain emerges?

Well its their right. Freedom of speech, and its their right to exercise it

To be fair can you imagine what would happen if a film came out in this vain about Islam

Well its their right. Freedom of speech, and its their right to exercise it

To be fair can you imagine what would happen if a film came out in this vain about Islam
I don't have a problem with the complaining: it's the burning family planning clinics and death threats to humanists I find offensive myself.

Well its their right. Freedom of speech, and its their right to exercise it

To be fair can you imagine what would happen if a film came out in this vain about Islam

It'd be shut down -- you can't have such an intolerant, bigoted movie about Islam! You should be more understanding. :rolleyes:

So, is this sort of a religious version of the Blair Witch Project then?


Good Lord! I hope this movie isn't a boring as the Blair Witch Project

Good Lord! I hope this movie isn't a boring as the Blair Witch Project

Hehe, Good lord.... *chuckles* :p

Well, I never saw The Blair Witch Project. Does it have a plot?

The Christians will indeed protest: what else do they ever do when a movie or record they disdain emerges?

Well it really depends on wether or not they've ever heard of it and how many theaters it actually appears in. From the looks of the sight this might be a direct-to-video sort of deal....

There must be some real losers making this movie just to piss people off.

I would'nt call them losers in the tradition of Marilyn Manson and 2LiveCrew they will prove once again that even if you are devoid of talent and imagination if you anger enough people with a scandal you are certain to get rich...

Hehe, Good lord.... *chuckles* :p

Well, I never saw The Blair Witch Project. Does it have a plot?


Well, not a plot as such, no.

I would'nt call them losers in the tradition of Marilyn Manson and 2LiveCrew they will prove once again that even if you are devoid of talent and imagination if you anger enough people with a scandal you are certain to get rich...
I will send you a ham sandwich if they actually get rich off of this. With cheese.

Plus, of course, the very real possibility that the whole thing is just a story, and that there never were any records, because the events never really transpired....


Sure, that's a possibility. I'd rate the likelihood that there was no person behind the story as fairly low, though. Cults don't spring up from nothing; there's usually a charismatic personality behind them at the beginning. The trick, for any religion, is to survive the loss of that initial charismatic personality.

As it is, we have no records for or against the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sure, that's a possibility. I'd rate the likelihood that there was no person behind the story as fairly low, though. Cults don't spring up from nothing; there's usually a charismatic personality behind them at the beginning. The trick, for any religion, is to survive the loss of that initial charismatic personality.

As it is, we have no records for or against the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I didn't say there was NO person behind the story.

I was watching the television the other day, and I happened across an episode of a programme called "Smallville", I believe.

In the particular episode I caught, there was an interesting side-story, in which Lex Luthor is shot, and almost dies. As he lies dying, he is kind of 'visited' by his future... he sees it all playing out in front of him... his friendship with Clark Kent extending into the future, etc.

I sat thinking about this particular episode... it intrigued me. Here I was, exploring the back-story to the relationship with Kent... the motivations that made them enemies.

I found myself thinking of the Superman movies I saw a few years back, with Superman flying around the world fast enough to reverse time, and flying into the sky.

I found myself thinking about the comics I read as a teen, about Kal El (I believe that's right?), and a backstory about the hero as a citizen of Krypton.

I found myself thinking about another series... "The New Adventures of Superman", maybe? Don't recall the name. An interesting story line about time travel, some interesting other stories about the nature of kryptonite.

Then, I found myself thinking about cartoons I watched years ago.

I remembered Superman having to run into a phone booth and say the 'magic word' "Shazam" to change. I remember Superman running 'faster than a locomotive'... I remember him being able to jump 'tall buildings in a single bound'... or words to that effect.

Most of a century transpired between the origins of that story, and the version I saw just a couple of weeks ago. And, if you search, there are millions of references. We know who Clark Kent dated. We know the varieties of 'kryptonite' and what they do. We know who Lois Lane and Lex Luthor are... and how they got into the story.

Amusingly, not ALL of what we know matches. It almost adds an extra element of realism that the accounts tell basically the same story, but have different 'angles' to explore.

And yet... I very much doubt that, even with the best science in the world, you and I could locate Clark Kent's mortal remains?


What it comes down to is: there were hundreds of Messiah stories two-thousand years ago. There were dozens of stories about Jesus-like figures, in other cultures, that predate the Jesus story, often by hundreds of years.

It is entirely possible, that what we call the Jesus story, is the story of one of the Buddhas (one exists about 600 years OLDER than the Jesus story, with many of the same features), with a 'Jewish' name slapped on it.

There is NO necessity, at all, for a 'real' Jesus.... he need be nothing more than a 'mythical accumulation'.... which is kind of where I came in with Superman.

(Batman is another, excellent, example).

A good point. However, there is no sign of a Christian or proto-Christian belief structure prior to about about 50 AD in any of the Roman or other records of the region. If the mythological figure predates that point by more than about 50 years, there should have been some sign of it.

Further, early Christianity was very much a Jewish Sect, up to and including the period of the Judean Revolt. Only after that did the leadership of the nascent church deliberately distance themselves from Judaism, for the dual political purposes of getting themselves out from under the influence of the surviving Judaic leadership and increasing their palatability to the Roman populace and government (which, immediately post the Revolt, was understandably miffed at the whole religion).

Finally, the period of Jesus' supposed ministry coincides with a period of religious upheavel and discontent with Judean society. The Pharisees (Priestly class) were seen by many as being too willing to bow down before Rome, and there were many splinter sects and cults. One notable, and powerful, sect was the Maccabeans, a highly militant group that would go on to more or less lead the Revolt - and the last known trace of which vanished at Masada. Judas Maccabeus (lit. "of the Maccabeans") was supposedly recruited from among them.

So, it seems likely that Jesus of Nazareth, as we know him from the Bible was based upon a real person who lived in that period and had a religious following. Whether he did all the stuff that the Bible claims, or was the Christ - that is another question entirely.

A good point. However, there is no sign of a Christian or proto-Christian belief structure prior to about about 50 AD in any of the Roman or other records of the region. If the mythological figure predates that point by more than about 50 years, there should have been some sign of it.

Further, early Christianity was very much a Jewish Sect, up to and including the period of the Judean Revolt. Only after that did the leadership of the nascent church deliberately distance themselves from Judaism, for the dual political purposes of getting themselves out from under the influence of the surviving Judaic leadership and increasing their palatability to the Roman populace and government (which, immediately post the Revolt, was understandably miffed at the whole religion).

Finally, the period of Jesus' supposed ministry coincides with a period of religious upheavel and discontent with Judean society. The Pharisees (Priestly class) were seen by many as being too willing to bow down before Rome, and there were many splinter sects and cults. One notable, and powerful, sect was the Maccabeans, a highly militant group that would go on to more or less lead the Revolt - and the last known trace of which vanished at Masada. Judas Maccabeus (lit. "of the Maccabeans") was supposedly recruited from among them.

So, it seems likely that Jesus of Nazareth, as we know him from the Bible was based upon a real person who lived in that period and had a religious following. Whether he did all the stuff that the Bible claims, or was the Christ - that is another question entirely.

There is evidence of Christian and proto-Christian belief sturctures, in that area, LONG before the time of the 'alleged' Jesus.

They may not have used the Hebrew 'messianic prophecy' as a selling tool, but there are many other ways in which they match the Jesus story...

Early Buddhist teachings, remarkably similar to later Christian teachings, were in THAT area of the world, 600 years BEFORE Jesus. Jesus was far from the first "born of a virgin" figure... and not the first "resurrected" prophet.


The problem is... most of what we know about the 'figure of Jesus' comes from one set of sources.... the scriptures written by his followers, which beans none of them are independent.

The next information sources we have, are all written by latter commentators, like Jospehus or Tacitus... who base all their information of what they 'heard'... since they were not in the area... or even BORN, during the alleged life of the biblical 'Jesus'.

There is NOTHING independent AND contemporary, to support the existence of a 'Jesus'... as miracle worker, or even as inspiration figure.

A good point. However, there is no sign of a Christian or proto-Christian belief structure prior to about about 50 AD in any of the Roman or other records of the region. If the mythological figure predates that point by more than about 50 years, there should have been some sign of it.

Further, early Christianity was very much a Jewish Sect, up to and including the period of the Judean Revolt. Only after that did the leadership of the nascent church deliberately distance themselves from Judaism, for the dual political purposes of getting themselves out from under the influence of the surviving Judaic leadership and increasing their palatability to the Roman populace and government (which, immediately post the Revolt, was understandably miffed at the whole religion).

Finally, the period of Jesus' supposed ministry coincides with a period of religious upheavel and discontent with Judean society. The Pharisees (Priestly class) were seen by many as being too willing to bow down before Rome, and there were many splinter sects and cults. One notable, and powerful, sect was the Maccabeans, a highly militant group that would go on to more or less lead the Revolt - and the last known trace of which vanished at Masada. Judas Maccabeus (lit. "of the Maccabeans") was supposedly recruited from among them.

So, it seems likely that Jesus of Nazareth, as we know him from the Bible was based upon a real person who lived in that period and had a religious following. Whether he did all the stuff that the Bible claims, or was the Christ - that is another question entirely.

There is evidence of Christian and proto-Christian belief sturctures, in that area, LONG before the time of the 'alleged' Jesus.

They may not have used the Hebrew 'messianic prophecy' as a selling tool, but there are many other ways in which they match the Jesus story...

Early Buddhist teachings, remarkably similar to later Christian teachings, were in THAT area of the world, 600 years BEFORE Jesus. Jesus was far from the first "born of a virgin" figure... and not the first "resurrected" prophet.


The problem is... most of what we know about the 'figure of Jesus' comes from one set of sources.... the scriptures written by his followers, which beans none of them are independent.

The next information sources we have, are all written by latter commentators, like Josephus or Tacitus... who base all their information of what they 'heard'... since they were not in the area... or even BORN, during the alleged life of the biblical 'Jesus'.

There is NOTHING independent AND contemporary, to support the existence of a 'Jesus'... as miracle worker, or even as inspiration figure.

You seem to be equating absence of religion with Atheism, this is not the case. A better comparison would be the number of films glorifying Atheism vs. films glorifying religion, I'm guessing that the latter would hold a large majority.

Churches are owned by the religous group that runs it so they have the right to decide what is allowed in there, if they want to ban science in their church then fine but if they want to discuss science then that is equally fine, the congregation go of their own free will and if they don't like what goes on they don't have to go.

Schools are state owned and so are maintained by tax-payers' money so they don't promote religion, simple. They can (and should) teach about various religions but they don't teach one to be true. I don't know what you're refering to when you talk about lawsuits for religion in workplaces but if you could elaborate then I'll try and respond.

Yeah, really. You don't see atheist organizations with stained glass windows and cool pipe organs.