Passion of the Christ SUCKED!!

[MrBirdy]

i just plain dont like the fact that i spent $10 on a movie of a guy getting whipped for 2 hours...
i know what you are going to say "how can you not like it, it portrayes the love of jesus to save us"
well, i think that the saying hold up for every movie/book "the book is always better than the movie"

so ithink it would have been better to just have read myself a bibel
and not have waisted hard-earned money about a guy getting tortured...
see, here is some reason, would anybody have liked a movie about some guy in WWII getting tortured by nazis for 2 hours?

[Ausinus]

The Passion sucked shit, I agree. It was an excuse for Mel Gibson to portray the jews as evil people.:D

Same reason people like Condi, they dont want to be seen as racist if they dont support her.

[MrBirdy]

come one, No callers?

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

It was just some hyped up way to make money off of Americans' religion. Horrible film that is only given good reviews because people are afraid of how the HIGHER POWER may react if they tell their true opinions.

[General Septem]

Good acting, good directing, but I don't feel like I need or want to see it again. Having the images in my mind when they read the Passion at Church is enough. Claiming it was nothing more than an anti-Semitic political message on the other hand is both ignorant and inflammatory.

[Ausinus]

He blames the death of Jesus (if it did even happen) on the jews. How is that now anti-semitic?

[General Septem]

He blames the death of Jesus (if it did even happen) on the jews. How is that now anti-semitic?

According to the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, that happens to be the truth. It's no more anti-Semitic than arresting a black man for stealing someone's TV. By no means is Mel Gibson or anyone else blaming all Jews for the death of Christ, just Caiaphas. Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and most of Jesus's disciples were Jewish themselves for bollocks sake.

[twisted_screams]

Ok as far as the movie goes I thought it was pretty cool when how everytime he was about to give in he saw his mother and remembered his mother in such a way this made him strong. Yeah i know corney womans opinion but hey it made me feel good.;)

[WhiteRaven]

sorry to bump this, but I'm going to say that THIS WAS THE MOST GOD-AWFUL MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN!!
first the pharisees, why were they all fat? why were they all stupid? why did they wear formal clothes no matter where they were?
also, why did they speak latin? why didn't they speak english? "Mel Gibson wanted it historically accurate." that's stupid.

"It seems pretentious to have the actors speak in Latin and Aramaic, but it’s all part of the director’s attempt to create a “you are there” sensibility in the viewer’s mind. In fact, the gospels which served as the source for this tale were crafted long after the time of the alleged events by people who could not have been present. Gibson is trying to sell the audience a myth by presenting it as if it were as authentic as a historically-accurate recreation of a Civil War battle. Additionally, the dialogue is often not even subtitled, particularly when Yeshua is being abused by the Romans, so those unfamiliar with Latin will miss the precise meaning of the epithets being showered upon the bruised Nazarene. Translating Latin curse words is a no-no; rubbing your nose in graphic violence is A-OK!"

"We are treated to a number of flashbacks, one of which depicts Yeshua the carpenter as having crafted a table which is too tall for local traditions. When his mother remarks upon it, he says he’ll make chairs to match. So, not only is he the Messiah, but he’s a brilliant innovator of furniture design! I wonder if that bit was in one of the non-canonical gospels?"

"We need not deal in detail with the inherent contradictions in the tale. However, it is interesting to note that, as shown in this film, Yeshua knows at the “final nosh” that he is going to be executed (as his deity-father wills), and he knows that Judas will betray him to set the deal in motion. But then Yeshua seems angered at Judas who is only doing what his God has ordained him to do. You’d think Judas, who supposedly loved and revered his mentor and thus felt great pain at being the one who had to do this, might actually be considered a hero by Christians for having to be placed in such a painful situation that he is driven to suicide. Perhaps he should be considered the patron saint of thankless tasks? Such an odd cult is Christianity"

"Also of interest is the scene wherein the two criminals crucified along with Yeshua express their take on the situation. One believes in him as a holy man, the other challenges this dying Messiah to exercise his powers to get them the hell out of there. The doubter is punished when a raven arrives and pecks his eye out. Seems a tad bitchy of God, wouldn’t you say? The Romans who savaged Yeshua are unscathed, while somebody under great personal duress who presents a verbal challenge gets mutilated. Anyone else think this is a strange hierarchy of values? And of course, the Almighty lets his son be abused and saves the vengeful earthquake as an after-death climactic scattershot retribution. Poor timing? Why wreak havoc upon those who are doing what you wanted them to do, Jew and pagan alike? Seeking sense in this myth system has been fruitless for millennia."

"When Longinus’ spear pierces the side of Yeshua to make certain he is dead, it releases such a fountain of blood and body fluids, that one must recall “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” to find a similarly overdone gout. Several people ecstatically bathe under this torrent; the director celebrates this revolting behavior."

"With that in mind, I could speculate that innovative pornographers might find this to be the time to introduce a new Messiah. A “spiritual” young lady (“hot” by contemporary standards, with her legal age statement properly on file), a true daughter of God, receives a vision that Mankind is so sinful that the death of Yeshua just wasn’t enough. She claims that God has inspired her to subject herself to the ultimate degradation of the world’s biggest “gang-bang,” so that Mankind’s multitudinous sins will be expiated through her selfless act as a receptacle for the jism of thousands of “fallen” men. They too will be saved through contact with this prostitute-paraclete. If such were realized with enough piety, perhaps in time this myth could be the foundation for a new religion? Is it any less ridiculous or obscene than what Gibson has portrayed?"

I wouldn't mind following that religion http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html (http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/ClockworkMessiah.html)

[General Septem]

sorry to bump this, but I'm going to say that THIS WAS THE MOST GOD-AWFUL MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN!!
first the pharisees, why were they all fat? why were they all stupid? why did they wear formal clothes no matter where they were?
also, why did they speak latin? why didn't they speak english? "Mel Gibson wanted it historically accurate." that's stupid.

"It seems pretentious to have the actors speak in Latin and Aramaic, but it’s all part of the director’s attempt to create a “you are there” sensibility in the viewer’s mind. In fact, the gospels which served as the source for this tale were crafted long after the time of the alleged events by people who could not have been present. Gibson is trying to sell the audience a myth by presenting it as if it were as authentic as a historically-accurate recreation of a Civil War battle. Additionally, the dialogue is often not even subtitled, particularly when Yeshua is being abused by the Romans, so those unfamiliar with Latin will miss the precise meaning of the epithets being showered upon the bruised Nazarene. Translating Latin curse words is a no-no; rubbing your nose in graphic violence is A-OK!"

"We are treated to a number of flashbacks, one of which depicts Yeshua the carpenter as having crafted a table which is too tall for local traditions. When his mother remarks upon it, he says he’ll make chairs to match. So, not only is he the Messiah, but he’s a brilliant innovator of furniture design! I wonder if that bit was in one of the non-canonical gospels?"

"We need not deal in detail with the inherent contradictions in the tale. However, it is interesting to note that, as shown in this film, Yeshua knows at the “final nosh” that he is going to be executed (as his deity-father wills), and he knows that Judas will betray him to set the deal in motion. But then Yeshua seems angered at Judas who is only doing what his God has ordained him to do. You’d think Judas, who supposedly loved and revered his mentor and thus felt great pain at being the one who had to do this, might actually be considered a hero by Christians for having to be placed in such a painful situation that he is driven to suicide. Perhaps he should be considered the patron saint of thankless tasks? Such an odd cult is Christianity"

"Also of interest is the scene wherein the two criminals crucified along with Yeshua express their take on the situation. One believes in him as a holy man, the other challenges this dying Messiah to exercise his powers to get them the hell out of there. The doubter is punished when a raven arrives and pecks his eye out. Seems a tad bitchy of God, wouldn’t you say? The Romans who savaged Yeshua are unscathed, while somebody under great personal duress who presents a verbal challenge gets mutilated. Anyone else think this is a strange hierarchy of values? And of course, the Almighty lets his son be abused and saves the vengeful earthquake as an after-death climactic scattershot retribution. Poor timing? Why wreak havoc upon those who are doing what you wanted them to do, Jew and pagan alike? Seeking sense in this myth system has been fruitless for millennia."

"When Longinus’ spear pierces the side of Yeshua to make certain he is dead, it releases such a fountain of blood and body fluids, that one must recall “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” to find a similarly overdone gout. Several people ecstatically bathe under this torrent; the director celebrates this revolting behavior."

Total opinionated and ignorant bullshit. Whoever wrote this was just desperate.

[WhiteRaven]

"Total opinionated and ignorant bullshit. Whoever wrote this was just desperate."

if you really thought that, you would have actually pointed out somewhere where there was a problem in the logic.

""When Longinus’ spear pierces the side of Yeshua to make certain he is dead, it releases such a fountain of blood and body fluids, that one must recall “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” to find a similarly overdone gout. Several people ecstatically bathe under this torrent"

it is a scientific fact that people's bodies do not have enough blood in them to cover several people, where do you see opinionated and ignorant bullshit
in that sentence?

"Also of interest is the scene wherein the two criminals crucified along with Yeshua express their take on the situation. One believes in him as a holy man, the other challenges this dying Messiah to exercise his powers to get them the hell out of there. The doubter is punished when a raven arrives and pecks his eye out."

so while his son is being murdered and yet is forgiving his murderers like a naive little prick, god has a raven peck out this guy's eye for being rational? Is god Jesus' cruel side?

"You’d think Judas, who supposedly loved and revered his mentor and thus felt great pain at being the one who had to do this, might actually be considered a hero by Christians for having to be placed in such a painful situation that he is driven to suicide."

there is nothing opinionated or ignorant about that, Judas betrayed Jesus for silver. Judas didn't really want to betray Jesus, not at his core anyway, or obviously he would not have killed himself.

[something]

i just plain dont like the fact that i spent $10 on a movie of a guy getting whipped for 2 hours...
i know what you are going to say "how can you not like it, it portrayes the love of jesus to save us"
well, i think that the saying hold up for every movie/book "the book is always better than the movie"

so ithink it would have been better to just have read myself a bibel
and not have waisted hard-earned money about a guy getting tortured...
see, here is some reason, would anybody have liked a movie about some guy in WWII getting tortured by nazis for 2 hours?

Hmm... Slow motion whip scenes with half naked men...:D

No seriuosly, it sucked.

[General Septem]

if you really thought that, you would have actually pointed out somewhere where there was a problem in the logic.

I wouldn't even know where to begin. The assertions made were as myopic and ignorant as one saying the Earth must be flat because the floor is flat. They refuse to listen to the whole story because it would mean they'd have to find something else to bitch about. Things like this are written by people who will hold on to their straw-man arguments and half-truths like life preservers. It is pointless and futile to attempt to reason with them.

But since you asked.


The statement about "graphic violence" is based on the misconceived idea that all depictions of violence are somehow "bad", and how "bad" the violence is depends not on whether the depicted deaths were meaningful in the context of the story, nor the number of people who died, but the amount of blood shown, or in other words, how realistic the violence was. This evolved from the more accurate belief that gratuitous violence is bad.

The violence depicted in The Passion was not gratuitous in the least, it was merely realistic. Gratuitous violence is needless deaths for the sole purpose of entertainment.


Judas betrayed his master and his best friend because someone offered him a shitload of money. In no way was he merely doing what God ordained him to do. It was only when he saw what they did to Jesus that he was overwhelmed with grief and remorse. He could've trusted in God and begged for forgiveness, and he would've been forgiven, but instead he just killed himself so he wouldn't have to live with the guilt.

Judas's betrayal was in no way integral to God's plan. As long as there was sin in the world, someone would have caught up with Jesus sooner or later. It was only a matter of time. After all, people had been trying to kill Jesus since He was a newborn. If it wasn't for the fact that man is sinful, there would have been nobody to crucify Jesus, but then again He wouldn't have had to die either. Just because Jesus died on the cross doesn't justify our sin, but merely forgives our sin.


The guy on the other cross that got his eyes pecked out by a crow is nowhere to be seen in the Gospels if I remember correctly, but in any event it is not established that it was "God's wrath" that willed it to happen. It could have just been that the man was being so blasphemous, even the birds were offended by it. Who knows.

[WhiteRaven]

"The statement about "graphic violence" is based on the misconceived idea that all depictions of violence are somehow "bad", and how "bad" the violence is depends not on whether the depicted deaths were meaningful in the context of the story, nor the number of people who died, but the amount of blood shown, or in other words, how realistic the violence was. This evolved from the more accurate belief that gratuitous violence is bad.

The violence depicted in The Passion was not gratuitous in the least, it was merely realistic. Gratuitous violence is needless deaths for the sole purpose of entertainment."

well, I didn't hate seeing it, but I would have preferred it in an actual fight.


"Judas betrayed his master and his best friend because someone offered him a shitload of money. In no way was he merely doing what God ordained him to do. It was only when he saw what they did to Jesus that he was overwhelmed with grief and remorse."

because he didn't already know they would kill him? torture him? he might not have known they would torture him. Oh wait, anyone who would torture someone like that would likely torture anyone they executed. I don't think the pharisees were allowed to punish people either, it had to be the romans, and they were rather brutal with criminals if I recall correctly

"The guy on the other cross that got his eyes pecked out by a crow is nowhere to be seen in the Gospels if I remember correctly"

True, but it does not matter, this is about the movie, it does not matter if that scene is in the bible, one of the non-canonical gospels, or tatooed on a horsefly's ass.

"but in any event it is not established that it was "God's wrath" that willed it to happen. It could have just been that the man was being so blasphemous, even the birds were offended by it."

That's about the dumbest I've ever heard. Then again it is a Mel Gibson film.

[General Septem]

well, I didn't hate seeing it, but I would have preferred it in an actual fight.

I'm talking about the review now, and it made some kind of allusion that the movie was condoning graphic violence.


because he didn't already know they would kill him? torture him? he might not have known they would torture him. Oh wait, anyone who would torture someone like that would likely torture anyone they executed. I don't think the pharisees were allowed to punish people either, it had to be the romans, and they were rather brutal with criminals if I recall correctly

Of course he probably knew what they were going to do, but it's a lot fucking different when you're being tempted by a handful of nice, shiny coins, than actually watching it happen and realizing what you've done. Or do you just expect everyone to be reasonable all the time?


By the way, I forgot to say this initially, but it's well known that Jesus was a carpenter before He started His ministry.

[WhiteRaven]

"By the way, I forgot to say this initially, but it's well known that Jesus was a carpenter before He started His ministry."

yes he was supposedly a carpenter, he was not a brilliant innovator of furniture design.

"I'm talking about the review now, and it made some kind of allusion that the movie was condoning graphic violence."

"translating latin curse words is a no-no, rubbing your nose in graphic violence is A-ok"

it says that because if you're going to show extreme gore, there is no point censoring a few curse words.

"it's a lot fucking different when you're being tempted by a handful of nice, shiny coins, than actually watching it happen and realizing what you've done."

he knew what they were going to do, coins or no coins, he betrayed Jesus, and he betrayed himself, and because he performed an action that completely contradicted his nature, he went insane, that is what guilt really is, not this good and evil, happy happy, joy joy nonsense.

anyway, Jesus repeatedly told his disciples that they would deny him, betray him, he told Judas that he would be responsible for his death, I think, but let's think about that for a moment, what if your best friend was an illegal mexican immigrant, and he was constantly telling you that you would report him to immigration because it was the will of god, if you thought he was the son of god, or even just a prophet, then it can be logically assumed that he would be on a bus back to mexico, correct?

[General Septem]

yes he was supposedly a carpenter, he was not a brilliant innovator of furniture design.

Who says He was alleged to have invented these things?


it says that because if you're going to show extreme gore, there is no point censoring a few curse words.

Ah, well not translating them isn't necessarily censoring. It's enough to know that they were obviously throwing insults. Translating every passing interjection would just clutter the screen up too much, and since it was all translated when they were putting the crown of thorns on His head, it should be obvious that it's not just some censorship.


he knew what they were going to do, coins or no coins, he betrayed Jesus, and he betrayed himself, and because he performed an action that completely contradicted his nature, he went insane, that is what guilt really is, not this good and evil, happy happy, joy joy nonsense.

And your point is?


anyway, Jesus repeatedly told his disciples that they would deny him, betray him, he told Judas that he would be responsible for his death, I think, but let's think about that for a moment, what if your best friend was an illegal mexican immigrant, and he was constantly telling you that you would report him to immigration because it was the will of god, if you thought he was the son of god, or even just a prophet, then it can be logically assumed that he would be on a bus back to mexico, correct?

Jesus never told Judas to betray Him nor that it was the will of God. I really don't know what you're trying to say here.

[MrBirdy]

where the fuck is AJK
i need to pwn that n00b while whiteracist and the general fight!!

[WhiteRaven]

"Jesus never told Judas to betray Him nor that it was the will of God."

really now?!

And while they were eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me."...Then Judas, the one who would betray him said, "Surely not I, Rabbi." Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you(some say: "you yourself have said it")." Matthew 26:21,25

Incidentally, It occurs to me that Judas was the treasurer of the group, if it were really greed, he could have simply took a few minor coins every once in a while, or do you think that neither Judas nor Jesus knew how to save large amounts of money, I could understand Jesus, since he spoke a parable against saving money.

[something]

where the fuck is AJK
i need to pwn that n00b while whiteracist and the general fight!!

He might have realised that his arguments doesn't hold water.

[General Septem]

"Jesus never told Judas to betray Him nor that it was the will of God."

really now?!

And while they were eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me."...Then Judas, the one who would betray him said, "Surely not I, Rabbi." Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you(some say: "you yourself have said it")." Matthew 26:21,25

And you honestly think in this passage that Jesus is telling Judas to betray Him? Jesus is just saying He already knows Judas is going to betray Him. Judas had already taken the money at that point, he was already planning to betray Jesus; he wasn't told to because it was part of God's plan.

It's just like how He predicted that Peter would deny Him three times before the cock crowed. He didn't do that because he was told to, he did it so they wouldn't crucify him along with Jesus. Peter didn't even believe he would do it when Jesus said so; Jesus knew Peter better than he knew himself. Of course by the time it all happened, Peter forgot about Jesus's prediction until he denied Him three times and the cock crowed. Then he realized what he'd done.

Just because someone says "this will happen" doesn't mean "you are to do this". In the case of Peter's denial, it was a prediction, and in the case of Judas's betrayal, it was a "you're not fooling me".

[WhiteRaven]

"It's just like how He predicted that Peter would deny Him three times before the cock crowed. He didn't do that because he was told to, he did it so they wouldn't crucify him along with Jesus. Peter didn't even believe he would do it when Jesus said so; Jesus knew Peter better than he knew himself. Of course by the time it all happened, Peter forgot about Jesus's prediction until he denied Him three times and the cock crowed. Then he realized what he'd done.

Just because someone says "this will happen" doesn't mean "you are to do this". In the case of Peter's denial, it was a prediction, and in the case of Judas's betrayal, it was a "you're not fooling me"."

tell me, have you ever heard of self fulfilling prophecies? of the subconscious? of, oh, ANYTHING ABOUT PSYCHOLOGY?!

if Jesus told them they would deny him, their conscious mind may not have believed it, but the subconscious would have.

[General Septem]

tell me, have you ever heard of self fulfilling prophecies? of the subconscious? of, oh, ANYTHING ABOUT PSYCHOLOGY?!

if Jesus told them they would deny him, their conscious mind may not have believed it, but the subconscious would have.

Did you read when I said Judas had already taken the money? He was already planning to betray Jesus at that point.

And you obviously don't know how self-fulfilling prophecies work.

The point is that Judas was in no way doing the work of God by betraying Jesus.

[Ausinus]

Did you read when I said Judas had already taken the money? He was already planning to betray Jesus at that point.

And you obviously don't know how self-fulfilling prophecies work.

The point is that Judas was in no way doing the work of God by betraying Jesus.

Maybe he was - by ensuring Jesus got crucified. XD

[General Septem]

Maybe he was - by ensuring Jesus got crucified. XD

If you'd read back to one of my earlier posts, He would have anyway. As long as there was sin in the world, someone would've gotten Jesus crucified sooner or later. People had been trying to kill Jesus since the day He was born.

[Ausinus]

If you'd read back to one of my earlier posts, He would have anyway. As long as there was sin in the world, someone would've gotten Jesus crucified sooner or later. People had been trying to kill Jesus since the day He was born.

Wow that must have been really shitty. :D

[Walter Weiss]

There is more and more evidence to suggest that another prisoner died in Jesus place, while he was spirited away to what later became France. Women were sent to attend his needs (yes all of his needs) and run his house. He was a political theorist perpetuating a movement for a group of people. The prisoner's body disappeared in case identity might be called into question, and very simply the people were told that he "arose" and ascended bodily into heaven. How do we know what happened 2000 years ago? How do we know that the prisoner was whipped for two hours? How do we know the details? We dont....we have to depend on religious scholars (religious bullshit artists) for details, and if we profess to doubt, we are ridiculed and called "devils" for not having "faith" and not putting money in the coffers of the church.

How do we know what really happened? Maybe the book "bible" lasted all these years because he was alive with this girls in France, perpetuating his political movement through his agents and contacts.

[WhiteRaven]

"Did you read when I said Judas had already taken the money? He was already planning to betray Jesus at that point."

I did, but here is something else for you to think about, why did they need Judas to betray Jesus? Jesus was famous. And as I believe I have said, Judas had no need to betray Jesus for money, he was THEIR FUCKING TREASURER, he could have taken some of their money.

"And you obviously don't know how self-fulfilling prophecies work."

Do you assume that there is only one way that they work? A self fulfilling prophecy merely means that it was a prophecy that caused itself to come true, there is more than one way for that to happen, once a person I knew was spreading rumors about me, and I found it was him, so I told him he looked sick, and asked if he was alright, I did that for 2 days, the next day he actually did look sick, I told him he looked even worse, he was out for quite a while after that. It was pretty cool. It wasn't a prediction, but it worked in a similar way.

"The point is that Judas was in no way doing the work of God by betraying Jesus."

Unless of course you have read and believe in the Gospel of Judas.

[General Septem]

I did, but here is something else for you to think about, why did they need Judas to betray Jesus? Jesus was famous. And as I believe I have said, Judas had no need to betray Jesus for money, he was THEIR FUCKING TREASURER, he could have taken some of their money.

Perhaps they didn't need Judas to betray Jesus; perhaps it was just a general reward that Judas couldn't pass up. And perhaps (assuming Judas was their treasurer as I don't remember hearing anything about that in any of the Gospels, and why would they need a treasurer?) he took their money but betrayed Jesus anyway so that the owner of the money he stole wouldn't come looking for him. The money he got from Caiaphas was probably a lot more than what Jesus had if any.


Do you assume that there is only one way that they work? A self fulfilling prophecy merely means that it was a prophecy that caused itself to come true, there is more than one way for that to happen, once a person I knew was spreading rumors about me, and I found it was him, so I told him he looked sick, and asked if he was alright, I did that for 2 days, the next day he actually did look sick, I told him he looked even worse, he was out for quite a while after that. It was pretty cool. It wasn't a prediction, but it worked in a similar way.

So I assume you can prove Peter wouldn't have betrayed Jesus if He hadn't said anything about denying Him? In any case that doesn't even apply to what we were talking about.


Unless of course you have read and believe in the Gospel of Judas.

Yes, and if you believe the fucking gospel of Billy-Bob you might think Jesus lived in a trailer, but fortunately some people are smart enough to know that not every fucking thing written means anything.

[WhiteRaven]

"Yes, and if you believe the fucking gospel of Billy-Bob you might think Jesus lived in a trailer, but fortunately some people are smart enough to know that not every fucking thing written means anything."

there is no real difference between the canonical gospels and the gospel of Judas, or any other non-canonical one. Why do you accept the bible, but not the apocrypha(I'm assuming).

"So I assume you can prove Peter wouldn't have betrayed Jesus if He hadn't said anything about denying Him?"

I'm saying that possibility cannot be ruled out.

"Perhaps they didn't need Judas to betray Jesus; perhaps it was just a general reward that Judas couldn't pass up."

but Judas had to kiss Jesus so that they would know which one he was, which I was saying is strange as Jesus was famous and therefore anyone who hadn't seen him could ask just about anyone there.

"And perhaps (assuming Judas was their treasurer as I don't remember hearing anything about that in any of the Gospels, and why would they need a treasurer?) he took their money but betrayed Jesus anyway so that the owner of the money he stole wouldn't come looking for him. The money he got from Caiaphas was probably a lot more than what Jesus had if any."

how can you be certain how much he had?

"assuming Judas was their treasurer as I don't remember hearing anything about that in any of the Gospels, and why would they need a treasurer?"

well, usually, when a group wishes to actually save money, they appoint a treasurer.

[General Septem]

there is no real difference between the canonical gospels and the gospel of Judas, or any other non-canonical one. Why do you accept the bible, but not the apocrypha(I'm assuming).

Then perhaps they were just redundant. Nobody ever writes a book and expects it to be included in Scripture. Writings just come up, like the letters to Corinthians and whatnot. Just because certain things were added doesn't mean everything has to be, and just because something wasn't added doesn't mean it's inherently bad.


but Judas had to kiss Jesus so that they would know which one he was, which I was saying is strange as Jesus was famous and therefore anyone who hadn't seen him could ask just about anyone there.

In the days before film, the days in which people often looked very similar, the days in which a lot of people couldn't see very well because of the lack of inventions such as glasses, it's kind of hard to expect a crowd of people who probably weren't all that familiar with Jesus's teachings to recognize Him during the night.


how can you be certain how much he had?

Who the fuck cares? It's not like lack of intent can prove anything anyway. It's like having a video of someone killing someone else and arguing that the guy had no reason to kill him.


well, usually, when a group wishes to actually save money, they appoint a treasurer.

I don't seem to remember saving money being their goal, especially since Jesus was telling the rich to sell everything they had and give to the poor.

[WhiteRaven]

"Then perhaps they were just redundant. Nobody ever writes a book and expects it to be included in Scripture. Writings just come up, like the letters to Corinthians and whatnot. Just because certain things were added doesn't mean everything has to be, and just because something wasn't added doesn't mean it's inherently bad."

actually I think they determined which books were canonical by voting. What I meant when I said they were the same was that neither had more credibility than the other.

"In the days before film, the days in which people often looked very similar, the days in which a lot of people couldn't see very well because of the lack of inventions such as glasses, it's kind of hard to expect a crowd of people who probably weren't all that familiar with Jesus's teachings to recognize Him during the night."

amazingly some archaeologists now claim that there were glasses back then, but anyway, if they couldn't see him at night maybe they should have let their eyes adjust, or *gasp* arrested him in the daytime.

"I don't seem to remember saving money being their goal, especially since Jesus was telling the rich to sell everything they had and give to the poor."

If they wanted to eat, it was probably a good idea to save a bit of money, don't you think?


take a look at this. (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/judas.html)