My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« What the Government got up to behind closed doors... | Main | Directed evolution...sounds suspiciously close to ID »

Comments

KevOB

Why am I not surprised? The Bible speaks of apostasy and false prophets in the time before Jesus return. Expect copies to be sent to schools for compulsory viewing in RE classes.

Come Lord Jesus.

peasant

The more outlandish the lie, the more money to be made from the enthusiastically ignorant.

I find the actual histories to be much more fascinating. Theory is that St. Thomas landed there and starting an ancient church. Or the amazing stories of Patrick of Ireland, John Hus, Telemachus, Polycarp, or even Reinhard Bonnke.

peter

To be fair, the Bible covers only highlights of a life of Jesus. We have no idea what he did with the rest of his life.

Which leads me to my next point - the word of the Bible stands whether Jesus did, or did not, exist - or do the things reported. It really makes no difference to us now - it is the value of the teaching that should be the focus.

This movie is doing no more than what successive popes have done - build something on the foundation of the Bible.

In fact my main criticism of the popes is that they have lagged too far behind the times. They have also failed to reverse old failed dogma like the celibate priest requirement. However they did "evacuate" their creation of "limbo" - full marks for that Ratsy!

fugley

Why so upset?

This is simply continuing a long line of one fiction drawing on an eralier fiction and retelling it for a new audience. Why, Shakespeare made an absolute art form out of drawing on earlier stories.

And, as there are no copyrights on the bible stories, anyone may adapt and build on them.

peter

Fugley

Link to this site to see a perfect example of what you are talking about:

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/geoffrey.htm

Yes, Geoffrey of Monmouth provided a lot of the folk lore concerning King Arthur - the subject of many a book, play, musical and film. The whole concept of gallantry and noble philosophy. The role of Merlin as a prophet and source of wisdom.

But also, Shakespeare derived King Lear from the writings of this man. Now if there ever was a better parable about "honouring thy father", tell me what it is.

His writings are an amalgam of history and legend. Does it even matter which is history and whcih is legend? Tell me Fugley, do you think we should be looking at the Bible in EXACTLY the same light.

peasant

The Bible may be inconvenient for you, but it's not fiction. No book has been subject to such emnity, censorship, and brutal suppression; and yet it contains immutable hope for all humanity.

The grass withers, the flowers fade, but the word of God stands forever.

peter

The New Testament is largely an UNAUTHORISED biography of Jesus Christ.

If anything, enmity, suppression and especially censorship may have GREATLY affected the true picture.

The hope you refer to could remain all the same, if it provides useful insights and good moral philosophy. For the better part it does. And THAT is its value.

peasant

petey old boy. You need to read "The DIVINITY Code" instead of regurgitating made-up "facts" from "The Da Vinci Code"

peter

Peasant

I would have said that the story in the Da Vinci Code was in the same league as the Bible, King Lear and King Arthur.

The trouble with Da Vinci Code is that it has no particular point to it. It teaches us nothing except how to write a best-seller for the masses in racy style - actually it teaches us the same lesson as the Divinity Code by our very own Ian Wishart!

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

peasant

Thank-you for demonstrating your inability to distinguish fact from fiction.

fugley

Here's another link for you:

WRITERS don’t make up myths; they take them over and recast them. Even Homer was telling stories that his audience already knew. If some individuals present weren’t acquainted with Odysseus’s wanderings or the Trojan War, and were listening in for the first time (as I was when a child, enthralled by the gods and goddesses in H.A. Guerber’s classic retelling), they were still aware that this was a common inheritance that belonged to everyone. Its single author – if Homer was one at all – acted as a conduit of collective knowledge, picking up the thread and telling it anew.

http://www.theliberal.co.uk/issue_11/artsandculture/myth_warner_11.html

peter

To be honest, I don't really believe Jesus made it to India - coming plenty of centuries earlier than Marco Polo!

But hold on. This is Jesus we are talking about. He could have transported himself to India at the speed of light - nay even that could not have restricted him. In actual fact, he could have filled in some time there after his resurrection.

peasant

This idiotic mockery makes dialogue pointless. I refer you to 937000 Google hits for "bible trustworthy"

For example,
Some would attempt to deceive the world, shaming it into thinking that the Bible is unreliable, but they ignore the amazing facts about the preservation of the Scriptures. Today we have seven manuscript copies of Plato's works, the earliest dating from A.D. 900, more than 1,200 years after their original recording. We have 52 copies of Aristotle's works, the earliest dating from A.D. 1100, over 1,400 years after their composition. We have three manuscripts of Catullus, dating from A.D. 1550, more than 1,600 years after they were first written.

Compare this to the New Testament: We have in excess of 25,000 manuscripts, the earliest of which dates from A.D. 130 (by latest estimate)—a mere 80 years removed from its original! In fact, the New Testament is by far the best-attested ancient work, the runner-up for the prize being The Iliad. Homer's first major work exists in some 644 copies, the earliest of which is all of 500 years removed from its original.

Sir Frederick Kenyon, late head librarian at the British Museum, wrote: “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (The Bible and Archaeology, 1940).

peter

Googling for Bible: trustworthy 937 000
untrustworthy 171 000
not trustworthy 21 000.

Certainly does not seem to be complete accord.

But I thought the issue of Jesus in India was to address possibility of activity not reported in the Bible.

Peasant - are you saying that everything Jesus Christ ever did is reported in the Bible.

By my reckoning, he had tons and tons of time to other things as well. (I still maintain that Jesus was a man that operated under all the rules of human life - i.e. He was not outside space and time like God is alleged to be)

peasant

By all means read your fringe literature peter, but a balanced view is obtained by reading some CURRENT bible scholarship. Unfortunately it seems you'd rather attack than try to understand.

KevOB

There were places too where Jesus would not enter because of the unbelief.

The comments to this entry are closed.