'The Beast' Movie: Jesus didn't exist

[Bonnie]

Former Christian director's secretive film scheduled to open on 06-06-06
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40867

A movie whose purpose is to prove that Jesus Christ never existed and that demonizes Christian fundamentalists is scheduled to open on June 6, 2006- that is, 06-06-06, the "666" biblical mark of the beast.

Directed by Brian Flemming, who is described on the film's website as a "former fundamentalist Christian, "The Beast" promises to spread the theory he claims is "gaining credibility among scholars"-that Jesus was made up out of thin air.

Here is where I think the battle lines between good vs evil are being drawn, hence my posting on the end of the world. Maybe this battle has always been raging, and due to the information age things are culminating at a faster pace.......Don't really know?

 

[5stringJeff]

The existence of Jesus, the person, has never been credibly doubted by anybody. This movie sounds like it will be full of more than Farenheit 9-11.

 

[eric]

Jeff, I agree with you.

His existence was not in doubt, but rather his divinity !

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Man, he's really going to hell for this.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Man, he's really going to hell for this.

Eh, it will at least be interesting. Always good to have both sides of an argument in my opinion.

However, it'll have to be EXTREMELY convincing though to even dent the notion that Jesus the man didn't exist.

 

[dmp]

If Jesus were made up, were all of the characters in the bible made up as well? Especially new testament?

If so..fine. Let me know how that works out for you..

If not, why would countless scores of people die for something they NEW was a lie?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This may conflict with the widely held theory that the left will hold up an alleged blood descendant of christ, (hence the proliferation of all the "Davinci Code" stuff) to ascend to power in the EU and be the anti christ. The left can never keep their stories straight.

 

[Bonnie]

Eh, it will at least be interesting. Always good to have both sides of an argument in my opinion.

However, it'll have to be EXTREMELY convincing though to even dent the notion that Jesus the man didn't exist.

Why is it ALWAYS good to have both sides of an argument?

 

[YoungChristian]

Even history text books recognize Jesus as a historical figure. I do not believe that the world would have transformed in the way it did if a group of people made Jesus up.

 

[Zhukov]

A movie whose purpose is to prove that Jesus Christ never existed

Yeah, good luck with that.

Ex-christian atheists are the worst kind. Why doesn't he make a movie about how Siddhartha never existed? Because his driving motivation, for both his faith and this movie, is undoubtedly nothing but simple hatred for Christianity.

Otherwise, why would he even care?

But all the other bitter little ex-christian atheists will nod their empty heads in monolithic approval no matter the true quality of the product this man's hatred creates.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Why is it ALWAYS good to have both sides of an argument?

Because nobody is infallible. We can never be sure what is the truth and the best way to ensure that we get close is by having all sides of a position.

Hypothetically, if Jesus did not exist as a man I would like to know that because it would greatly change our world.

 

[Bonnie]

Because nobody is infallible. We can never be sure what is the truth and the best way to ensure that we get close is by having all sides of a position.

Hypothetically, if Jesus did not exist as a man I would like to know that because it would greatly change our world.

So you don't believe in any absolute truths, and for you the truth lies in the gray areas?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

So you don't believe in any absolute truths, and for you the truth lies in the gray areas?

No I didn't say I don't believe in absolute truths. I said we can't know those truths. We are human and are infallible. No one on this earth can KNOW the truth.

Discussion opens up questions, exceptions and debate which can at the very least reinforce one's belief in a particular concept.

 

[musicman]

No I didn't say I don't believe in absolute truths. I said we can't know those truths. We are human and are infallible. No one on this earth can KNOW the truth.

From the movie, "Full Metal Jacket":

SLAP! "What side was THAT, Private Pyle?"

"Sir, left side, sir!"

SLAP! "What side was THAT, Private Pyle?"

"Sir, right side, sir!"

Sure, we can KNOW the truth.

 

[Bonnie]

No I didn't say I don't believe in absolute truths. I said we can't know those truths. We are human and are infallible. No one on this earth can KNOW the truth.

Discussion opens up questions, exceptions and debate which can at the very least reinforce one's belief in a particular concept.

Discussion is a great tool for getting to the truth, that we agree on, however what is the point of discussion if all we ever arrive at is some semblance of truth rather than truth itself. At some point you either have to decide on truth or keep a never ending discussion going which can take you in circles...........much like that of the U.N.

 

[dmp]

By it's very definition, the statement "there are no absolute truths" contradicts itself.

 

[5stringJeff]

By it's very definition, the statement "there are no absolute truths" contradicts itself.

As does the statement "We can't know the truth."

 

[MJDuncan1982]

As does the statement "We can't know the truth."

Before we run off with this tangent (which was discussed I believe in another thread) let me clear up that I didn't say there were no absolute truths in this thread.

I said we can't know what they are. Knowing something requires omniscience. Our perception of reality is based on our senses which are human organs and fallible.

The point is that no human can be 100% about anything and that means that the side which is believed only 1% also deserves to be heard because it is still possible it is true.

Yes the point about everyone believing the world was flat is beaten to death but it is done so for a reason. Thankfully we had a small percentage who did not accept that as a 100% fact.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

By the way, when did we get an "edit" button? Very handy!!

 

[5stringJeff]

Before we run off with this tangent (which was discussed I believe in another thread) let me clear up that I didn't say there were no absolute truths in this thread.

I said we can't know what they are. Knowing something requires omniscience. Our perception of reality is based on our senses which are human organs and fallible.

The point is that no human can be 100% about anything and that means that the side which is believed only 1% also deserves to be heard because it is still possible it is true.

Yes the point about everyone believing the world was flat is beaten to death but it is done so for a reason. Thankfully we had a small percentage who did not accept that as a 100% fact.

OK, I'm tangenting on this.

You say that knowing something requires omniscience - knowing everything. That is false. Knowing everything requires knowing all somethings, but knowing something does not require knowing all somethings. To put it a bit more plainly: assume there are 100 facts to be known in the universe. To know one of these facts does not necessitate knowing the other 99. You can know one of them without the knowledge of the others.
Is our knowledge limited? Absolutely. Will the human race ever attain any kind of omniscience? Absoulutey not. I have no illusions about that. But you can't just say out of hand that one can never know a truth. I can know that 2+2=4 without knowing the volume of the universe or whether it's moral to masturbate.

Now, to get back to the larger point, I think it's fine for people to question history. But when the overwhelming evidence points to a certain conclusion, then those same skeptics should embrace the conclusion that the facts point to. In the case of this thread, if there are four biographies of Jesus by four different people, plus a religion based on the life teachings of this person (not to mention His death and resurrection), plus mentions of this person in other historical records (i.e. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the late 1st century), then the overwhelming facts dictate that Jesus did, in fact, exist.