Tom Cruise Is At It Again...Thetans Are Amoung Us!

[redrumloa]

Jesus was crucified on a cross, that is history not fantasy.

Most atheists would say the opposite. Regardless, I saw the movie and thought it was pretty good - even though I'm an atheist.

Actually the Romans kept records of this, it is fact that Jesus was crucified.

 

[redrumloa]

Jesus was crucified on a cross, that is history not fantasy.

Most atheists would say the opposite. Regardless, I saw the movie and thought it was pretty good - even though I'm an atheist.

Actually the Romans kept records of this, it is fact that Jesus was crucified.

 

[Wayne]

Actually the Romans kept records of this, it is fact that Jesus was crucified.

I'd love to see pointers to back that up. I'm sure there were hundreds of "Jesus" cruxified, just like looking in the phone book for John Smith brings up a few. The rest is 2000 years of spin and conjecture based upon then-pop-culture urban legend.

Wayne

 

[Wayne]

Actually the Romans kept records of this, it is fact that Jesus was crucified.

I'd love to see pointers to back that up. I'm sure there were hundreds of "Jesus" cruxified, just like looking in the phone book for John Smith brings up a few. The rest is 2000 years of spin and conjecture based upon then-pop-culture urban legend.

Wayne

 

[Wayne]

Actually the Romans kept records of this, it is fact that Jesus was crucified.

I'd love to see pointers to back that up. I'm sure there were hundreds of "Jesus" cruxified, just like looking in the phone book for John Smith brings up a few. The rest is 2000 years of spin and conjecture based upon then-pop-culture urban legend.

Wayne

 

[Wayne]

Actually the Romans kept records of this, it is fact that Jesus was crucified.

I'd love to see pointers to back that up. I'm sure there were hundreds of "Jesus" cruxified, just like looking in the phone book for John Smith brings up a few. The rest is 2000 years of spin and conjecture based upon then-pop-culture urban legend.

Wayne

 

[Wayne]

Actually the Romans kept records of this, it is fact that Jesus was crucified.

I'd love to see pointers to back that up. I'm sure there were hundreds of "Jesus" cruxified, just like looking in the phone book for John Smith brings up a few. The rest is 2000 years of spin and conjecture based upon then-pop-culture urban legend.

Wayne

 

[Wayne]

Actually the Romans kept records of this, it is fact that Jesus was crucified.

I'd love to see pointers to back that up. I'm sure there were hundreds of "Jesus" cruxified, just like looking in the phone book for John Smith brings up a few. The rest is 2000 years of spin and conjecture based upon then-pop-culture urban legend.

Wayne

 

[faethor]

Actually the Romans kept records of this, it is fact that Jesus was crucified.

Do you have any sources backing this which we could see?


My understanding is Jesus was a common name -- Like John today so it may be a bit hard to pin down it was this exact Jesus. Roman records do not exist from that period except for the work of historians. There is no mention of Jesus from the Roman Historians of that time. Josephes was the closest historian that had a couple line mention of Jesus but it's clear that later Christians filled in words in the translations so actual original intent is of severe question. (Maybe I'm watching too much Discovery at this time of year but this is pretty fresh.)

If you take the Bible as a historical truth about Jesus you will see that PotC did not follow the gospels. Conversely if you hold that PotC is historically correct then the Bible itself is historically inaccurate and lacking detail. PotC not only lightly used the Bible it used the thoughts by using works of Roman Catholic nun-mystics who wrote down their supposed visions of the event. Of course along with Mel's own graphic details of brutality. (Don't get me wrong it was indeed brutal but there's no historical record to tell if it was actually better or worse then Mel's depiction. And there was things going on in the punishment not described in the gospels.) Check the bible the suffering just before and on the cross is very brief, something Mel does in detail. This is part of the reason why I say it's more correct with the theology of Mel, then being historically accurate. It's a historically poor representation of the people and the actual event. This leads itself more as entertainment value then actual facts of Jesus' time.

 

[faethor]

Actually the Romans kept records of this, it is fact that Jesus was crucified.

Do you have any sources backing this which we could see?


My understanding is Jesus was a common name -- Like John today so it may be a bit hard to pin down it was this exact Jesus. Roman records do not exist from that period except for the work of historians. There is no mention of Jesus from the Roman Historians of that time. Josephes was the closest historian that had a couple line mention of Jesus but it's clear that later Christians filled in words in the translations so actual original intent is of severe question. (Maybe I'm watching too much Discovery at this time of year but this is pretty fresh.)

If you take the Bible as a historical truth about Jesus you will see that PotC did not follow the gospels. Conversely if you hold that PotC is historically correct then the Bible itself is historically inaccurate and lacking detail. PotC not only lightly used the Bible it used the thoughts by using works of Roman Catholic nun-mystics who wrote down their supposed visions of the event. Of course along with Mel's own graphic details of brutality. (Don't get me wrong it was indeed brutal but there's no historical record to tell if it was actually better or worse then Mel's depiction. And there was things going on in the punishment not described in the gospels.) Check the bible the suffering just before and on the cross is very brief, something Mel does in detail. This is part of the reason why I say it's more correct with the theology of Mel, then being historically accurate. It's a historically poor representation of the people and the actual event. This leads itself more as entertainment value then actual facts of Jesus' time.

 

[faethor]

Actually the Romans kept records of this, it is fact that Jesus was crucified.

Do you have any sources backing this which we could see?


My understanding is Jesus was a common name -- Like John today so it may be a bit hard to pin down it was this exact Jesus. Roman records do not exist from that period except for the work of historians. There is no mention of Jesus from the Roman Historians of that time. Josephes was the closest historian that had a couple line mention of Jesus but it's clear that later Christians filled in words in the translations so actual original intent is of severe question. (Maybe I'm watching too much Discovery at this time of year but this is pretty fresh.)

If you take the Bible as a historical truth about Jesus you will see that PotC did not follow the gospels. Conversely if you hold that PotC is historically correct then the Bible itself is historically inaccurate and lacking detail. PotC not only lightly used the Bible it used the thoughts by using works of Roman Catholic nun-mystics who wrote down their supposed visions of the event. Of course along with Mel's own graphic details of brutality. (Don't get me wrong it was indeed brutal but there's no historical record to tell if it was actually better or worse then Mel's depiction. And there was things going on in the punishment not described in the gospels.) Check the bible the suffering just before and on the cross is very brief, something Mel does in detail. This is part of the reason why I say it's more correct with the theology of Mel, then being historically accurate. It's a historically poor representation of the people and the actual event. This leads itself more as entertainment value then actual facts of Jesus' time.

 

[faethor]

Actually the Romans kept records of this, it is fact that Jesus was crucified.

Do you have any sources backing this which we could see?


My understanding is Jesus was a common name -- Like John today so it may be a bit hard to pin down it was this exact Jesus. Roman records do not exist from that period except for the work of historians. There is no mention of Jesus from the Roman Historians of that time. Josephes was the closest historian that had a couple line mention of Jesus but it's clear that later Christians filled in words in the translations so actual original intent is of severe question. (Maybe I'm watching too much Discovery at this time of year but this is pretty fresh.)

If you take the Bible as a historical truth about Jesus you will see that PotC did not follow the gospels. Conversely if you hold that PotC is historically correct then the Bible itself is historically inaccurate and lacking detail. PotC not only lightly used the Bible it used the thoughts by using works of Roman Catholic nun-mystics who wrote down their supposed visions of the event. Of course along with Mel's own graphic details of brutality. (Don't get me wrong it was indeed brutal but there's no historical record to tell if it was actually better or worse then Mel's depiction. And there was things going on in the punishment not described in the gospels.) Check the bible the suffering just before and on the cross is very brief, something Mel does in detail. This is part of the reason why I say it's more correct with the theology of Mel, then being historically accurate. It's a historically poor representation of the people and the actual event. This leads itself more as entertainment value then actual facts of Jesus' time.

 

[faethor]

Actually the Romans kept records of this, it is fact that Jesus was crucified.

Do you have any sources backing this which we could see?


My understanding is Jesus was a common name -- Like John today so it may be a bit hard to pin down it was this exact Jesus. Roman records do not exist from that period except for the work of historians. There is no mention of Jesus from the Roman Historians of that time. Josephes was the closest historian that had a couple line mention of Jesus but it's clear that later Christians filled in words in the translations so actual original intent is of severe question. (Maybe I'm watching too much Discovery at this time of year but this is pretty fresh.)

If you take the Bible as a historical truth about Jesus you will see that PotC did not follow the gospels. Conversely if you hold that PotC is historically correct then the Bible itself is historically inaccurate and lacking detail. PotC not only lightly used the Bible it used the thoughts by using works of Roman Catholic nun-mystics who wrote down their supposed visions of the event. Of course along with Mel's own graphic details of brutality. (Don't get me wrong it was indeed brutal but there's no historical record to tell if it was actually better or worse then Mel's depiction. And there was things going on in the punishment not described in the gospels.) Check the bible the suffering just before and on the cross is very brief, something Mel does in detail. This is part of the reason why I say it's more correct with the theology of Mel, then being historically accurate. It's a historically poor representation of the people and the actual event. This leads itself more as entertainment value then actual facts of Jesus' time.

 

[faethor]

Actually the Romans kept records of this, it is fact that Jesus was crucified.

Do you have any sources backing this which we could see?


My understanding is Jesus was a common name -- Like John today so it may be a bit hard to pin down it was this exact Jesus. Roman records do not exist from that period except for the work of historians. There is no mention of Jesus from the Roman Historians of that time. Josephes was the closest historian that had a couple line mention of Jesus but it's clear that later Christians filled in words in the translations so actual original intent is of severe question. (Maybe I'm watching too much Discovery at this time of year but this is pretty fresh.)

If you take the Bible as a historical truth about Jesus you will see that PotC did not follow the gospels. Conversely if you hold that PotC is historically correct then the Bible itself is historically inaccurate and lacking detail. PotC not only lightly used the Bible it used the thoughts by using works of Roman Catholic nun-mystics who wrote down their supposed visions of the event. Of course along with Mel's own graphic details of brutality. (Don't get me wrong it was indeed brutal but there's no historical record to tell if it was actually better or worse then Mel's depiction. And there was things going on in the punishment not described in the gospels.) Check the bible the suffering just before and on the cross is very brief, something Mel does in detail. This is part of the reason why I say it's more correct with the theology of Mel, then being historically accurate. It's a historically poor representation of the people and the actual event. This leads itself more as entertainment value then actual facts of Jesus' time.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

My understanding is Jesus was a common name

This reminds me of an article I read quite a number of months ago now about an archeologist in the holy lands who dug up a ossuary that bore the enscription "Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary" (more or less) whereupon the archeologist said "Oh no. Not another one!"

Apparently all three names are incredibly common and this sort of thing happens a lot.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

My understanding is Jesus was a common name

This reminds me of an article I read quite a number of months ago now about an archeologist in the holy lands who dug up a ossuary that bore the enscription "Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary" (more or less) whereupon the archeologist said "Oh no. Not another one!"

Apparently all three names are incredibly common and this sort of thing happens a lot.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

My understanding is Jesus was a common name

This reminds me of an article I read quite a number of months ago now about an archeologist in the holy lands who dug up a ossuary that bore the enscription "Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary" (more or less) whereupon the archeologist said "Oh no. Not another one!"

Apparently all three names are incredibly common and this sort of thing happens a lot.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

My understanding is Jesus was a common name

This reminds me of an article I read quite a number of months ago now about an archeologist in the holy lands who dug up a ossuary that bore the enscription "Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary" (more or less) whereupon the archeologist said "Oh no. Not another one!"

Apparently all three names are incredibly common and this sort of thing happens a lot.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

My understanding is Jesus was a common name

This reminds me of an article I read quite a number of months ago now about an archeologist in the holy lands who dug up a ossuary that bore the enscription "Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary" (more or less) whereupon the archeologist said "Oh no. Not another one!"

Apparently all three names are incredibly common and this sort of thing happens a lot.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

My understanding is Jesus was a common name

This reminds me of an article I read quite a number of months ago now about an archeologist in the holy lands who dug up a ossuary that bore the enscription "Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary" (more or less) whereupon the archeologist said "Oh no. Not another one!"

Apparently all three names are incredibly common and this sort of thing happens a lot.