'Jesus Of Nazareth' Proposed Film Angers Christians With Depiction Of Jesus As Result

[Nick333]

Explain the year - 2013 Anno Domini.

I'm not arguing his divinity or his word. I'm saying that he probably was a real person and there's sufficient historical documentation to support that. Likewise with the prophet Mohammed.

Again, no not really. There are contemporary accounts and records of Mohammeds doings. Not so with Jesus. Even the gospel accounts vary in detail and sometimes even contradict themselves. It's likely that the gospels are a mythical account of a historical person, but then they may well tell us nothing reliable of the actual man. And, lets not forget all the gospels that were written more or less at the same time as the four canonical ones. Some of those are at diametric odds with the Matthew, Luke, Mark and John.

So, really you either accept the canonical gospels as historical fact or you can only but speculate on Jesus as an historical figure.

[Garyvdh]

Didn't we do this before?

[Nick333]

Didn't we do this before?

Many times.

[Geriatrix]

[Nick333]

My last word is that anyone who believes that the Josephus reference to the early Christians and Christ is proof of his existence is just plain fudging. Very weird that a Romanised Jew would attest to the divinity of a man while not converting. I believe Jesus is the son of God yet, I'm not a Christian?

[unskinnybob]

Didn't we do this before?

Linky? Clearly I missed out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus - In my opinion, there's sufficient tangible evidence that Jesus really lived apart from scripture.

[Nick333]

Ok, my really last word (maybe): There more than likely was a man who is the historical basis for the mythical Jesus. But, we will never know what his deal was. There are some rather good reasons to believe that the gospels were written with some strong political agendas and the religion and doctrines of the modern churches were really authored by Paul, a man who never knew Jesus or ever acknowledges anything about the life of Jesus as an actual living person.

[unskinnybob]

Ok, my really last word (maybe):

Har har har...

There more than likely was a man who is the historical basis for the mythical Jesus. But, we will never know what his deal was. There are some rather good reasons to believe that the gospels were written with some strong political agendas and the religion and doctrines of the modern churches were really authored by Paul, a man who never knew Jesus or ever acknowledges anything about the life of Jesus as an actual living person.

Yeah - the more than likely = my view, ie. it's very likely. As Hitchens said, there's no real proof that Socrates lived BUT his works make him real. Or something to that effect. Same with Jesus.

[Garyvdh]

Linky? Clearly I missed out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus - In my opinion, there's sufficient tangible evidence that Jesus really lived apart from scripture.

No, I meant with all the previous movies that have been made about Jesus... every time a new one is announced there is controversy, and it doesn't matter if the movie is critical, sympathetic, or totally fictional, it will still generate controversy.

[unskinnybob]

No, I meant with all the previous movies that have been made about Jesus... every time a new one is announced there is controversy, and it doesn't matter if the movie is critical, sympathetic, or totally fictional, it will still generate controversy.

OIC.

I'd like to see what happens when someone announces a movie based on the Prophet Mohammed's adventures. 911 x 12!

[Nick333]

No, I meant with all the previous movies that have been made about Jesus... every time a new one is announced there is controversy, and it doesn't matter if the movie is critical, sympathetic, or totally fictional, it will still generate controversy.

I must admit I think some people just make them for the controversy. That David Cameron thing about the tomb of Jesus was a bit lame and got everyone so upset.

[Mineer]

OIC.

I'd like to see what happens when someone announces a movie based on the Prophet Mohammed's adventures. 911 x 12!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad,_Messenger_of_God

[HideInLight]

This is like taking a book like Harry Potter and replacing all wands with rocks.

[Madman88]

Not really, just would like to hear from xtians pov as to why it would be offensive besides the obvious.

Lol that always makes me laugh!

[Unhappy438]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad,_Messenger_of_God

Depiction of Muhammad
In accordance with Muslim beliefs regarding depictions of Muhammad, he was not depicted on-screen nor was his voice heard. At the beginning of the film, a statement is displayed, "The makers of this film honour the Islamic tradition which holds that the impersonation of the Prophet offends against the spirituality of his message. Therefore, the person of Mohammad will not be shown."
This rule extended to his wives, his daughters, his sons-in-law, and his caliphs (Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Umar ibn Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan). This left Muhammad's uncle Hamza (Anthony Quinn) and his adopted son Zayd (Damien Thomas) as the central characters. During the battles of Badr and Uhud depicted in the movie, Hamza was in nominal command, even though the actual fighting was led by Muhammad.
Whenever Muhammad was present or very close by, his presence was indicated by light organ music. His words, as he spoke them, were repeated by someone else such as Hamza, Zayd and Bilal. When a scene called for him to be present, the action was filmed from his point of view. Others in the scene nodded to the unheard dialogue.
The closest the film comes to a depiction of Muhammad or his immediate family are the view of Ali's famous two-pronged sword Zulfiqar during the battle scenes, a glimpse of a staff in the scenes at the Kaaba or in Medina, and Muhammad's camel, Qaswa.
The 1977 Hanafi Siege demands included destruction of the film. It is not clear the hostage takers understood the film did not attempt to depict Mohammad.

Maybe a movie where he is actually depicted on screen.