Well obviously if you knew what the teachings of Christianity were, you wouldn't be making a statement like that.

Many religions do not deny the existatnce of Jesus, but they don't believe in the ressurection.



Don Cardi

Not yet. Wait until it's closer to the release date

EXACTLY! That's why I never understood people who said "I don't believe in Jesus because you can't prove it." HELLO, it's called faith for a reason

And if you would open your mind to different perspectives you'd see that they are not denying he didn't go to Heaven spiritually. Just because the body didn't vanish you think the framework for Christianity is going to fall? Anyone who takes the Bible word-for-word literally is ignorant.

A discovery like this should strengthen Christianity if anything. I also love how family values is important but if Jesus might've had a family it's evil people destroying Christianity. I mean, let's be honest, The church is far from consistent, and the Bible isn't even complete or literal.

Don Vercetti, with all due respect, the very foundation of the Catholic Church is the belief in the RESURRECTION of Jesus, not solely, that he's the Son Of God or that He ascended into heaven.

Again, you're entitled to your beliefs, but it's not fair of you to criticize DC or anyone else for theirs.

I'm not criticizing anyone's beliefs. I'm criticizing the ignorant "bullshits" getting thrown around as if this is a big conspiracy. Hell, I go to a Catholic school which even teaches me surprisingly that the Bible is not to be taken literally. The Bible is to religion what Beowulf is to Anglo-Saxon machoism to me. They're stories and exaggerations meant to teach and guide us, not to be taken literally. Hell, Revelations alone should spell that out. Not to mention conflicting accounts of the same story.

And aside what memebers and critics are saying, Christianity is not trying to be dismantled. Can you say you wouldn't look into finding a 2,000 year old tomb with Jesus, Mary, Mary, and others there with DNA and bones?

I guess I'm ignorant cuz I believe in the Bible.

What bible you believe in anyway mignon?

Better yet, WHICH version of the New Testament do you believe?

Also, which version of Christian Bible you "believe" in? Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Lutheran? Baptist?

Anyway, I totally agree with DV here.

This almost reminds me of when Martin Scorsese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST was released in theatres in 1987. The movie was attacked by people like on this thread as attacking the "tenets of Christianity."

So what happened instead? Christianity was not destroyed or even effected seriously by the movie. Instead, as the passions cooled down and some of those attackers actually bothered to watch the movie, it eventually became a respected "biblical dramatic interpretation" by many serious theologians.

In fact, I would argue that THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is the only Jesus Christ movie that actually moved me spiritually. The previous and subsequent Jesus movies where he is a superhero that's betrayed by those damn Jews or persecuted by the imperialistic Romans, never made me care about the story or even the core-mythology of western civilization. Plus, Christ is usually boring in those sort of movies don't help the situation.

To use a comic book allegory, why is SPIDER-MAN usually more well-loved than say SUPERMAN? It can't be the powers, since Superman would easily break the web crawler like a Tootsie Roll. Instead, maybe why readers always prefered Spider-Man over Superman is because the tragic flaw qualities of Peter Parker made people more invested in that character when he is triumphant, over the impervious God-like Superman that when he wins, who cares?

I've always wondered who went and asked each and every one of the animals to the Ark. Did they do it by posted invitation or what? Did they draw straws to see who was going to the Arctic to fetch the polar bears?

Yeah Capo...and what jackass had the idea of leaving the fairies and unicorns on the shore? I know it wasn't Noah and all, but it was under his administration...

Bad organisation. How come the dodo was snubbed?

God had to concede something to the Dutch.

I've always wondered this too.its just not possible

Really?

Again, I think that you are missing the point here. For those who believe in the ressurection of Christ, they believe that both body and spirit ascended into heaven. And they also believe in the diety of Christ and that while he was tempted in all things that man is tempted in, he did not give in to any of those temptations. No one is telling anyone, or should ever tell anyone what they should or should not believe in.

You want to worship a goat? That's your own business. Be my guest.

What troubles me here is that someone is making a movie about something that is based on pure speculation and is presenting it as fact. However if one's faith is strong in their religious beliefs, then these kinds of attempts to present speculation as fact will not rattle that faith, but only strengthen it more.


I do have to laugh though at how some can question anothers belief in the scriptures and bible teachings claiming that there is no proof of what is taught from those books really happened, but then in the same breath they are quick to advocate these so called new findings and preach that everyone should have an open mind and try to believe what some hollywood finnochio is trying to pass off as fact.


So in other words if you choose to believe in this, and not the teachings of the bible, it is because you have an open mind, but if I choose to believe in the teachings of the bible, and not this, then I don't have an open mind?


Don Cardi

I love this.

Migion, you missed my point completely. Look for the word "literally."


Don Cardi, I'm not saying that Jesus isn't a diety, I'm saying that people sohuld allow flexibility into their religious beliefs. There are many different accounts of what happened to Jesus and different beliefs in different religions centered on what happened to him spiritually. In there is historical, DNA evidence that Jesus Christ had a had and has a tomb that isn't on the Holy Sepulchar, why is it hard to believe?

And who the hell is talking about worshipping a goat? I'm merely saying that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. When the Bible is taken literally, thats when we have fanatics and all the problems that come with religion. Do I really believe that a whroe of Babylon and a beast with several heads and such is gonna come and do something? No. It's metaphorical, who one believes it to be is their bussiness, some believe it's Emperor Nero, some believe it has yet to come.

And by the way Cardi, to answer the last question, the teachings of the Bible is what I'm talking about. The Bible is not meant to be taken literally. It's meant to be taken as a guide on how to live. I'm not neglecting the teachings.

I went through a phase of outright antagonism towards the whole idea of religion, but I've migrated to complete indifference since then. (What is religion anyway, or being "religous"? I'm sure you could argue I'm a religious fanatic regarding Cinema, or something, but whatever.)

I felt the need to say that before I venture into a defence on Cameron. I'm not really sure about this project, because I know very little about it. It'll probably interest me very little on a thematic level, and it might or might not please me aesthetically or formally. But I feel the need to ask you, DC, if a film can ever be factual, or indeed criticised for presenting things as "fact"?

I'll admit now that the question is heavily more involved with notions of filmmaking, with Art, with the wider nature of Truth, and not aimed at all toward a debate on Christianity.

I think phrases like, "It's just a film" or "It's only entertainment" are reductive and lazy, but there are nevertheless some inherent truths to them.

Actually, this is a good time for me to admit that I have the actual bones of Pontius Pilate in my basement - that is I had them. I got them from Geraldo Rivera, who got them from Al Capone's secret vault in the 1980s...but a few years ago I loaned them to Elvis, who was visiting me with a couple of Cubans, who had killed JFK.

Although I asked him to return them, Elvis went to Roswell where he showed them to several aliens, who took them to their planet. They returned supposedly to earth - a little late because of the Y2K computer disasters that crippled our planet. I think Elvis still has the bones. I've asked him to return them because James Cameron wants to make a movie (He thinks we can get a lot of money), but anyway, well, you know Elvis.

Can a film be factual? Sure, why not?

Can it be criticised for attempting to present something as being fact when there is no factual evidence to back up what that film is claiming is fact? Yes it can be criticized.

Is Cameron doing this project with the intent of providing entertainment? With just his passion for the art of making a film? I'm sure that he is. Is there an intent to try and debunk the holy teachings of Christianity? I believe that there is.

And being in the entertainment business, be it for the love of film, the art of making film, etc. there is also the desire to make money in the business. So I don't doubt that there is an attempt on his part to create the kind of controversy and outcry that will cause people to flock to the theaters to see what all the hullaballo is about.



Don Cardi

Thank you, Mr. Cardi. One of the best posts I've read.

Thank you DC

So DC, what exactly is lighting that fire under your ass? I'm confused.

Seriously, I expected this thread to go apeshit...but it didn't happen, and I was proud. I thought we had avoided an obvious pitfall that would burn IMDB daily. Instead, it happened anyway.

Besides DC, look at the Mormons. Using logic and circumstantial evidence, you can make the argument that Joseph Smith was a crock of shit. Hell, SOUTH PARK did.

But so what? Those Mormons will never abandon their faith.

Shit, Scientology is a more recent and obvious crock of shit in regards to the almighty L. Ron Hubbard. Besides suing the hell out of those that make exposes of that religion, they won't abandon Xenu anytime soon.

My point being is, why are people so damn offended about a tomb found in Israel? I can't believe that James Cameron will actually "prove" that it is the earthly remains of Christ. At best, it'll be a circumstantial argument. In other words, its Michael Moore, but without that partisan fat hairy fuck to annoy everyone. Besides, Cameron makes better movies.

Thats my problem I had with a core premise idea with THE DA VINCI CODE, which was that if the Jesus "truth" came out, the Roman Catholic Church would collapse.

Oh PLEASE.

Serious believers wouldnt beleive it, and save for maybe for a few hundreds, or thousands of followers lost, Rome will be secured. So why would Opus Dei go nuts about trying to kill people to keep a secret that doesn't have a serious chance of wrecking the church?

Whatever.

So DC, what is your faith anyway? Being so defensive and so privy, makes me wonder if you truely have the faith. Irish keeps the faith without being a dick about it. Do you?

I mean Jesus...I'm secured in my faith of the Jesus mythology. No, "mythology" doesn't mean its fake. Check this out from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1 : an allegorical narrative
2 : a body of myths : as a : the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people b : MYTHOS 2 <cold war mythology>
3 : a branch of knowledge that deals with myth
4 : a popular belief or assumption that has grown up around someone or something

"The Myth is Everything!" - Sergio Leone

In a way, this piss-fighting over which "reality" of Jesus was true or not is like with comic books.

Now don't get mad. Consider that the Superman "gospel" of the 1930s through the early 1980s had him being Superboy in Smallville, flying through Infinite Earth realities, oh and Krypto the Superdog. In the 1980s, a new "gospel" emerged from DC Comics: His parents live instead of being deceased. Lex Luthor is now a billionaire, not a super scientist. Superboy never happened.

Better yet, look at BATMAN. He went from a gun-wielding bastard dark vigilante in the 1930s, to a very political-correct, very open hero fighting against very campy enemies in the 1940s through the 60s. Then beginning in the 1970s and right through the 80s, he emerged as more of a secretive, street-aisle brawling hardcore crime fighter. Joker went from a silly clown to a psychopathic madman.

This is the same with Jesus. Islam claims that he wasn't sacrificed on the cross, but instead was saved by Allah(God) at the last minute, nor was he the "Messiah," but simply another holy prophet.

Like Superman and Batman, people have their own personal view of what Jesus "really is." Hell, the Catholic Marxists in Central America in the 1970s created their own "red" Jesus mythology.

Who wouldn't make a documentary about this? I don't know about everyone else but it isn't every day someone finds a tomb dated to 2000 years with remenants of Jesus Christ and other people within his circle.

As a Christian one believes the Holy Sepulchar is where Jesus was put to rest but what proof is there that it's the location? None. For once we are apparantly getting solidified proof.

Except the guy who discovered this exact tomb about 15 years ago basically said it was crap then, and now Cameron is acting like this is a huge discovery, when it's been dismissed by the very guy who found it, and still is.

That's where my curiousity is always peaked concerning this matter. What does it matter whether or not he was ressurected. He doesn't have to ressurect to be the son of God. He doesn't have to ressurect in order to be your savior. He doesn't have to ressurect for you to understand, admire, and follow his teachings. It doesn't matter whether or not someone can disprove the ressurection. What matters is that as Christians, you accept him as the son of your God, and you follow his teachings, and try to live up to a standard or morality and modesty.

I mean, this is coming from me, as an agnostic. If I can see this, why can't 90% of the Christian-population?

I think the pure fact that you've made this statement makes it evident you don't really understand the issue.

LLC, Because that is the tenet that Christianity was built on - that Jesus died for our sins, was resurrected, and sits at the right hand of the Father. That is what the holiest of Christian holidays, Easter, celebrates, the resurrection of Christ.

I'll not even bother with the ignorance in some of these posts (not stupidity...just ignorance...or maybe, arrogance). But had this been a documentary about how Muhaamed was a bloodlust killer or Ghandi was a pedophile or something, can you imagine the public outcry? It'd be like everyone who jumped on that chick who did the "If O.J. had really done it" thing. But since it has to do with Christianity, it's fair game.

Please don't tell me that believers have freedom of religion and there is respect for their beliefs when Cameron's kind of crap goes on constantly...and vicious, ludicrous posts such as some I've just read are always written in response, like mindless chants from programmed robots. You may think that believers are those with "narrow minds" and are "intolerant," but you haven't examined your own responses very closely.

Ok, so, what you're saying is that the fact that Jesus Christ can just pull off sub-human tasks is more important than his teachings on morality and acceptance?

That seems skewed to me. The fact that he died on the cross would be enough for me. It was when I still considered myself a part of the religion. I think that the fact that he went willingly towards death shows more courage and nobility than anything else I've heard of. The fact that he was ressurected is an important enforcement, but in my eyes, it shouldn't over-shadow or take of greater importance than his teachings, which should be the true focus of the religion.

Besides, even if someone does happen to disprove the ressurection, is it really going to change your mind about him? Most people will either completely deny such information, or they will simply disregard it and go on following his teachings. If it does manage to get someone to go on and say, "Oh, well this totally disproves everything. Time to go on and leave the church" then they probably didn't have much faith to begin with.

Then, let's just say Ghandi was a warmonger, Muhammed was a lunatic, and Buddha was comedian. Or, better, what do you hold up as sacred and worthy of your love and devotion? Let's just call it a pile of crap and tell you to grow up and get over it if it offends you, fair enough?

First of all, the Gandhi comparison with Mohammed and Buddha is a little flawed, because he was just a leader and not god or religious head. Secondly, there are already books on Gandhi that have depicted him negatively. Recently his own grandson has published a book where he says he had affairs and he slept naked with his niece and bunch of other points that conclude that he was a wierdo of sorts. One of the prime reasons he never got the nobel peace prize was that he was responsible for india/pakistan partition that led to a grand massacre in 1947. So there are people who believe he was a war monger.

Salman Rushdie wrote 'Satanic Verses' criticizing islam and koran. A woman author(I forget the name) in bangladesh wrote a book, 'Lajja' which means 'shame' that was outright critical on social values of Islam. Both of them have been banned from entering their own countries. But the fact is that they have published them and are available for purchase if you want.

So this has nothing unique to Christianity. Your argument is flawed.