All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law"
I want no part of that Jesus. You want to look me up, I guess I'll be where it's pretty hot.
The bible has many inconsistencies, as most people know. The gospels were written long after Jesus, long after the disciples, and the texts were written with their own purposes in mind.
Jesus with a sword? I prefer the one that works at the video store on the Family Guy. I'm not really into Jihad. If that puts me in brimstone, so be it.
And if Jesus came down with a sword to kick some a$$...how'd that work out for him? I prefer the loving Jesus. You can keep the Ghenghis Jesus and smite the world all you want.
I don't think posting scripture does anything but prove (yet again) that you are very devout. Sorry, but what does that contribute to discussion? If I posted a link to some atheistic organization's website, would anyone care, or think that it somehow plays a role in this conversation?
I'm posting LINKS, not scripture. Big difference, Bert. And they are very pertinient for answering questions and rebuking lies. When Jesus was tempted by the Satan in the wildreness he quoted scripture and nothing but scripture. The Devil left.
The word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword. And a whole lot better than opinions. Grass withers and the flowers fade, but the Word of the Lord stands forever.
Tacitus' Annals of Rome was around 116. Josephus was more like 70 AD...which is practically a news flash when it comes to ancient historical writings. Again, those two guys are talking NOT about Jesus as divine...just the ruckus that was created because of his life and followers. Josephus was Jewish and there's no evidence he had any interest in helping or aiding Christians. He mainly just wanted Romans dead.
Those are historical accounts of the time and examples of how, if you don't want to believe the Bible, there are other places that say Jesus existed, did stuff, appeared after his death and had a following that added to an already tumultous time.
It's apocrypha that was written hundreds of years later, is less credible, clearly didn't align with Biblical teachings and didn't make the canon. There's some stuff in there that's way weirder that anyone TRYING to make fun of the life of Jesus could come up with.
Josephus was born Joseph ben Mattathias in 37 C.E. in Jerusalem of a priestly and royal family. He excelled in his studies of Jewish law and studied with the Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Essenes, eventually aligning himself with the Pharisees. In 62 C.E. he went to Rome to free some imprisoned priests. After accomplishing this mission through the intercession of Nero's wife, Poppaea, he returned to Jerusalem in 65 C.E. to find the country in revolt against Rome.
Although Josephus had deep misgivings about the revolt, it became inevitable, due to reasons he discusses in his history, primarily the abuses of the Romans; this spurred the growth of fanatical Messianic Jewish movements which believed that the world was coming to an end shortly. In 66 C.E. the Masada was seized by the Zealots and the Romans were on the march; Josephus was appointed the commander of Galilee.
Josephus had to fight a defensive war against overwhelming force while refereeing internecine squabbles in the Jewish ranks. In 67 C.E. Josephus and other rebels were cornered in a cave during the siege of Jotapata and took a suicide pact. However, Josephus survived, and was taken hostage by the Romans, led by Vespasian.
Josephus shrewdly reinterpreted the Messianic prophecies. He predicted that Vespasian would become the ruler of the 'entire world'. Josephus joined the Romans, for which he was branded a traitor. He acted as consultant to the Romans and a go-between with the revolutionaries. Unable to convince the rebels to surrender, Josephus ended up watching the second destruction of the Temple and the defeat of the Jewish nation.
His prophecy became true in 68 C.E. when Nero committed suicide and Vespasian became Ceasar. As a result, Josephus was freed; he moved to Roman and became a Roman citizen, taking the Vespasian family name Flavius. Vespasian commissioned Josephus to write a history of the war, which he finished in 78 C.E., the Jewish War. His second major work, the Antiquities of the Jews, was completed in 93 C.E. He wrote Against Apion in about 96-100 C.E. and The Life of Josephus, his autobiography, about 100. He died shortly after.
Despite his ambivalent role, Josephus was an eyewitness to history, and his writings are considered authoritative. These texts are key to understanding a pivotal point in world history, which has tragic repercussions even to this day.
Hey mate, not arguing that Josephus existed. Just that his original documents don't exist -- and you know who copied these documents and handed them down over the centuries.., Monks... They certainly had a reason to be biased.
Furthermore, the research I did seems to suggest that if it wasn't added later then general agreement was that Josephus copied what he wrote from a Christian explanatory document that no longer exists and therefore can't be verified.
If we were to verify all ancient writings by the same standard, Cornetto, then no written history of the ancient world is reliable. The references provided hold up much more than written accounts of Alexander the Great, which was written more than 400 years after his death. And that's just one example. Most ancient writings, which no one wants to dispute, are written down hundreds of years later.
In regards to the references of Jesus being added later, of course it is possible. If they were, let me just say I'm really disappointed that those monks didn't add more interesting material. It's one thing to say Jesus was there, but another to provide a much more vivid account which could have gone farther in verifying specific events of Jesus' life of the gospels. Either the monks didn't add the reference or did so but were too lazy to anything interesting.
If we were to verify all ancient writings by the same standard, Cornetto, then no written history of the ancient world is reliable. The references provided hold up much more than written accounts of Alexander the Great, which was written more than 400 years after his death. And that's just one example. Most ancient writings, which no one wants to dispute, are written down hundreds of years later.
What makes you think I don't hold up the same filter for all ancient history? Because I do - it's notoriously unreliable and any historian will tell you that.
From my point of view, it seems to me that you are the one holding up different standards when it comes to something you believe to be true. And that's fine, have faith, but don't try to pass it off as fact when it isn't.
Hey mate, not arguing that Josephus existed. Just that his original documents don't exist -- and you know who copied these documents and handed them down over the centuries.., Monks... They certainly had a reason to be biased.
Can anyone argue what David Cross has to say about the Bible?
Pages: 
Author
Religion and the Boards
Take it or leave it. 
Logged
