Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:44:42 AM
713324 Posts in 53055 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Special Poll for Easter - WHO WAS JESUS OF NAZARETH? « previous next »
Poll
Question: Who or what do you think Jesus of Nazareth was?  (Voting closed: May 07, 2012, 03:39:23 PM)
The Son of God - 10 (43.5%)
A First Century Jewish Mystic - 1 (4.3%)
A Lunatic - 0 (0%)
A Prophet - 0 (0%)
Mainly a Myth - 6 (26.1%)
A First Century Political Revolutionary - 6 (26.1%)
A Misunderstood Rabbi - 0 (0%)
Total Voters: 18

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
Author Topic: Special Poll for Easter - WHO WAS JESUS OF NAZARETH?  (Read 20168 times)
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2591
Posts: 15182


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #30 on: April 10, 2012, 08:36:21 PM »

Virtually every verse you cite is lifted out of context and twisted to mean the opposite of what Jesus taught.

The FIRST time Jesus sent his disciples forth, he sent them to His own people.  Later on, He Himself led them
to minister among the Samaritans (John 4).  And then, when he left them for heaven, he told them to go and "teach ALL nations." Kinda blows the first one out of the water.
You see, this is just one of the many, many contradictions in the bible. Jesus says something here, and something completely opposite somewhere else.


His comment on "the days of Noah" refers to the fact that just as those people long ago ignored Noah's warnings and calls for repentance until the flood came, in the last days people will go on ignoring His message until it is too late.
Okay. That makes sense.

Quote
"His blood be on us, and on our children," while definitely misused by the church in later centuries to justify anti-Semitism, was what the mob actually cried out to Pilate when he tried to acquit Jesus, and washed his hands of the whole affair.  Matthew simply recorded what they said without commentary.  The verse does not "blame the Jews."  It records the fact that that particular angry mob of Jews, at that moment, accepting responsibilty for what happened at that moment.  Any interpretation beyond that is over-reaching.  After all, the disciple who heard the remarks, and recorded them, was also a Jew.
The new testament is full of anti-semitism. This really isn't the worst, but it is quite exploited. John blames the death of Jesus on jews. 19:7

Quote
Jesus does not command all His followers to leave their families and possessions, but says that, if they do, they will be rewarded for what they lose.  Saving souls for eternity is more important than earthly attachments.

And this is moral how? Give up everything for me, I'll make it worthwhile?

Quote
And last of all, the verse in Luke - not a command but a simple comment: The teachings of Jesus will cause division because some will accept them and others will reject them.
He was dead on right about that, as this thread demonstrates.

One of the prophecies that actually came true. Although I'm not stunned by the prediction that: "People will disagree in the future."

Quote
He also said "Peace I give unto you, my peace I leave with you - not as the world gives."
He does not promise peace to a sinful and war-torn world, but He does promise true and inner peace to those who embrace Him.

This implies that one needs him in order to achieve inner peace. Many would disagree.

The gospels were written 30 to 60 years after the events have supposedly took place. The story was passed on by word of mouth, by uneducated, superstitious people.
Josephus's source was written in about 94.
Suetonius's source wasn't contemporary either.

I noticed that you haven't addressed the issue of slavery, and Jesus condemning the jews for not killing their children for being disobedient.

OK, let's address your points.  
First of all, going first to the Jews, then to the Samaritans, is NOT a contradiction.  Jesus started his disciples off by sending them to a local audience, which was more likely to be receptive, then LED them to a more hostile audience, then SENT them to all the world.  That's not contradictory, it's just a solid tutorial approach. Start local, go global. Good business sense.

  Now, on the issue of Jesus' death, he was a Jew, he died in a city of the Jews, and it was Jewish religious leaders who pushed a Roman governor into sentencing him to death.  That's not anti-Semitism, it's simply what happened.  There weren't any blond-haired blue-eyed Norwegians in the crowd. Other than the Roman garrison and maybe a few merchants and Greek tourists, everybody in Jerusalem for Passover was Jewish!  The deeds and words of Jesus that inspired such hostility had their roots in his interpretation of Jewish law, and would have inflamed NO ONE but a Jew.  So of course the Jews of Jerusalem - particularly their religious and political leaders, were responsible for his death.  Since Jesus and every one of his 12 disciples were Jews, making such a claim is NOT anti-Semitic.  It simply records what happened.

  Jesus injunction about putting God first, ahead of even family, is moral in the context that serving God is superior in every way to serving human purposes.  However, again, taken in context of Jesus' entire moral philosophy, to serve God in the broader sense IS to serve man - albeit in a different way.  A good Christian will be a better husband, a better father, and a better employee by virtue of his faith - IF he allows the teachings of Christ to govern his conduct. And, the more effectively we serve him, the greater will be our reward.  Look at it this way - if Peter and John had stayed at their fishing nets, the entire Christian movement might never have started.  Following Jesus, and passing down what he taught, was more important than catching and selling fish.  Jesus also taught: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these other things will be added to you."  In other words, as long as God comes first, other needs will be provided for, one way or another.

And of course, the usual slander of the early Christians: "uneducated, superstitious" etc.  Jews of the First Century were one of the most literate peoples governed by Rome.  From the age of six until they were men, they divided their time between learning their trade and studying under their rabbis.  Most of them were bilingual, speaking Greek and Aramaic.  Many had a smattering of Latin also.  They were a hard-working people, close to the earth, who lived through some very rough times.  It's easy for us to be dismissive of them 2,000 years later, but I daresay they were not the ignorant rubes you make them out to be.
      As far as the Gospels go - Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written within the same decade, between 30 and 60 AD, by men who knew each other.  Matthew was one of the original 12 disciples and an eyewitness of most of the events he described.  He would have known not only Jesus Himself, but His mother and His brothers as well.  His material would be regarded as a primary source, by historical standards.  Mark was too young to have been one of the Disciples (although he apparently witnessed Jesus' arrest at Gethsemane), but according to Papias (writing about 110 AD, fifty years after the three Synoptic Gospels were written), Mark was the companion of Simon Peter, who made the journey to Rome with him and acted as Peter's interpreter to the Latin-speaking audience there.  His Gospel is made up of the stories of Jesus that Simon Peter told, and he had ample opportunity to make sure those stories were faithfully recorded.  Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, and by his own admission not a disciple of Jesus.  However, in his own words, he gathered the testimony  "as it was passed down to us by those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the word, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning,  it seemed good to me to draw up an account for you . . ."  With those words he begins a Gospel that features painstaking attention to historical detail, and follows it up with a careful history of the formative years of the church that followed, which we know as the Book of Acts.  Luke obviously consulted Mark's and probably Matthew's gospels, and in his travels would have had the chance to meet John, Peter, the brothers of Jesus, and probably the aging Mary, Jesus' mother, as well.  One other note, while I am on the topic - you will note that the Book of Acts ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome, awaiting trial before Nero.  We know from the letter of I Clement (about 90 AD) that Peter and Paul were both executed in Rome after the Great Fire of 66 AD but before the end of Nero's reign in 68.  Since Luke makes no mention of these significant events, it is most likely they had not happened at the time he wrote his gospel, or the book of Acts.  That puts the terminal date for Acts around 62 AD, when Paul was awaiting trial.  Which means Mark and probably Matthew were completed earlier still, around 60 or before.  So you are talking about a gap of some 27 years after the Resurrection, if 33 is the correct date, which most scholars now feel certain it is. As someone who graduated high school nearly 30 years ago, I can tell you that I have a pretty good memory for events that happened in the early 1980's.  Particularly events that were of great importance to my own life.

OK, that went long, Sorry.  Let me touch on your last two points - Josephus indeed wrote around 90-95 AD, compiling his notes from earlier sources and from his own experience.  That puts his writings about 60 years after the Crucifixion. While some have disputed his comments about Jesus, in his next passage he mentions James, the brother of Jesus, and his death at the hands of the High Priest's faction in 62 AD.  (Gasp! More anti-semitism from a Jew! And not even a Christian one at that!)  Since he makes that passing reference to Jesus there, it stands to logic that the passage mentioning Jesus in the preceding chapter was what he was indicating.  Also, Suetonius, you are correct, wrote nearly 100 years later - but he drew his histories from earlier sources that no longer exist.  There is also a letter from about 90 AD that refers to the Jews' "crucifying their wise king," not to mention all the Christian sources you completely discount because, well, they are Christian. That includes the works of the New Testament and the Apostolic fathers, like Clement.  Do I wish there were more sources outside Scripture, that mentioned Jesus?  Yes, I do.  BUt if you look at all the extant documents from the first half of the first century AD, the fact is that there are very, very few of them and none of those focus on Judea.  Most of the surviving writings from that era are either from Greece, Rome, or Egypt - and again, there are maybe a half dozen at most.  Flick is right that the life and ministry of Jesus made little immediate impact.  But their influence continued to grow, like ripples on a pond, as His disciples spread their message.
  Good grief, I'm writing a book here.  ANOTHER book, instead of the one I should be working on right now!  But, in for a penny, in for a pound.  I beg your indulgence while I address your last two points.
  On slavery - Jesus did not come into the world to change the political or social system.  His  mission was to reconcile Holy God with sinful man, through passing on His Father's teachings, and in his own flesh fulfilling the requirement of perfect justice by sacrificing Himself for the sins of the world.  In the world in which He was born,  slavery was a universal reality.  Jesus could not have done much against it if he tried, without exercising Divine coercion which would have unraveled the whole concept of human free will.  What He could do, and DID do, was teach a moral and ethical code, which, when perfectly followed. spelled the death knell of slavery.  How can you "love your neighbor as yourself" while buying or selling him at the auction block.  Christ came to end man's spiritual slavery to sin, which, in the eternal scale of things, was a far worse problem than the human labor system known as slavery.  
  Now, as to your last reference, I had to look it up tpo figure out what you were referring to.  I did not recognize it for the simple reason that you took it so far from its clear meaning!  Jesus condemned the Jewish leaders for ducking the ancient commandment to "honor father and mother" by simply pledging to give their earthly goods to the Temple (at some point in the future), and then using that as an excuse not to take financial care of their aging parents.  While he does briefly cite the ancient Mosaic code: "Let him who speaks evil of his mother or father, be put to death," there is no hint that he was advocating killing anyone - simply shaming the Pharisees for using a hollow religious oath to duck out on their responsibility for taking care of their parents as long as they lived.  In an age with no nursing homes or social security, abandoning elderly parents was considered an egregious sin - especially for people who held themselves up as spiritual leaders.

  Wow.  I had no intent of going on this long when I started, and I hope I didn't put anyone to sleep.
  BTW, Flick, I know that you and I have batted this back and forth a good bit before, but I do appreciate your position about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof.  The difference between us is that I believe the Gospel accounts do measure up that standard, and you believe that they do not.  It's a difference I love to debate, but always with respect and affection. Cheers
Logged

"I shall smite you in the nostrils with a rod of iron, and wax your spleen with Efferdent!!"
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 368
Posts: 4168


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2012, 09:17:23 PM »

There are very, very few scholars that reject the existence of Jesus.  Even some rather rabid atheists acknowledge that he more than likely really existed.  The scholarly debate centers on questions of his divinity and if not the divine Son of God, what about him made him stand out (in an historical sense) from the many others at the time who had "similar" ministries.

(Similar ministries if you reject divinity).

The resurrection itself holds considerable scholarly interest since it was witnessed by such a broad spectrum of people.  I'm struck by the significance of Paul's conversion; he was not exactly "friendly" to the early Christians.

If we reject the four Gospels as "historic evidence" for whatever reason, we are still left with Paul's conversion and subsequent ministry.  This is not easy to explain away either and is much better documented.

I agree that there is, indeed, an awful lot of mystery about this story.  I'm not sure it's meant to have the kinds of explanations we seek to ascribe to it.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2591
Posts: 15182


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #32 on: April 10, 2012, 10:34:17 PM »

Lots of arguments are made over precepts in the bible.  If LUKE suggested he brought division and not peace, he made a savvy observation.  Truth and justice are often absent and the oppressor wants it that way.  JESUS certainly believed in the "old GOD" and was consistent in most if not all regards.  JESUS' story is remarkable because he was impoverished, obscure, villified then executed.  If men did that, there must be something worthy of a second look here.  I have no problem with GOD or JESUS.  It's mankind that worries me.  

Well said!
Logged

"I shall smite you in the nostrils with a rod of iron, and wax your spleen with Efferdent!!"
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2591
Posts: 15182


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #33 on: April 10, 2012, 10:40:24 PM »

One other point - then I MUST go to bed.
There was apparently a Roman document that confirmed, to some degree, the Gospel narratives about Jesus.
Justin Martyr, around 140 AD, wrote an apologia for Christianity that he dedicated to the Emperor Antoninus Pius.
After describing the arrest and crucifixion - and the Resurrection - he told the Emperor: "That these things happened, you may ascertain for yourself from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."  It makes sense that an event which threw all of Jerusalem into tumult would have merited a report to Caesar.  And, given Pilate's stormy relationship with his subjects, it might well have been a pre-emptive strike against any report the High Priest sent back to Rome.  Unfortunately, the original "Acts of Pilate" was lost by the fourth century when Constantine legalized Christianity.  But it must have existed, and corroborated the Christian narrative to some extent, or Justin would not have appealed to it so confidently.  There was, I might add, a forged "Acts of Pilate" written sometime in the Fifth Century which circulated in the Medieval church but is now universally condemned by scholars as a forgery.
Logged

"I shall smite you in the nostrils with a rod of iron, and wax your spleen with Efferdent!!"
Trevor
Uncle Zombie and Eminent Shitologist
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2121
Posts: 22708



« Reply #34 on: April 11, 2012, 03:07:31 AM »

I have three choices there: from the top, 1, 4 and 6. In other words, he is the Son of God, a prophet and a revolutionary.  Smile
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 06:49:06 AM by Trevor » Logged

I know I can make it on my own if I try, but I'm searching for the Great Heart
To stand me by, underneath the African sky
A Great Heart to stand me by.
Cthulhu
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 253
Posts: 2138



« Reply #35 on: April 11, 2012, 06:22:08 AM »

Quote
OK, let's address your points. 
First of all, going first to the Jews, then to the Samaritans, is NOT a contradiction.  Jesus started his disciples off by sending them to a local audience, which was more likely to be receptive, then LED them to a more hostile audience, then SENT them to all the world.  That's not contradictory, it's just a solid tutorial approach. Start local, go global. Good business sense.
Okay, I'm willing to accept that. However, I could get into why that doesn't make any sense if Jesus was of divine origin.


Quote
Now, on the issue of Jesus' death, he was a Jew, he died in a city of the Jews, and it was Jewish religious leaders who pushed a Roman governor into sentencing him to death.  That's not anti-Semitism, it's simply what happened.  There weren't any blond-haired blue-eyed Norwegians in the crowd. Other than the Roman garrison and maybe a few merchants and Greek tourists, everybody in Jerusalem for Passover was Jewish!  The deeds and words of Jesus that inspired such hostility had their roots in his interpretation of Jewish law, and would have inflamed NO ONE but a Jew.  So of course the Jews of Jerusalem - particularly their religious and political leaders, were responsible for his death.  Since Jesus and every one of his 12 disciples were Jews, making such a claim is NOT anti-Semitic.  It simply records what happened.
Yes, indeed they were jewish, but they have accepted Jesus as their master. They believed he was the son of god. Other jews have not, since the religious tension. Although take what I'm saying here with a grain of salt, as I'm not as well versed in early church history as I'd like to be.

Quote
And of course, the usual slander of the early Christians: "uneducated, superstitious" etc.  Jews of the First Century were one of the most literate peoples governed by Rome.  From the age of six until they were men, they divided their time between learning their trade and studying under their rabbis.  Most of them were bilingual, speaking Greek and Aramaic.  Many had a smattering of Latin also.  They were a hard-working people, close to the earth, who lived through some very rough times.  It's easy for us to be dismissive of them 2,000 years later, but I daresay they were not the ignorant rubes you make them out to be.
      As far as the Gospels go - Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written within the same decade, between 30 and 60 AD, by men who knew each other.  Matthew was one of the original 12 disciples and an eyewitness of most of the events he described.  He would have known not only Jesus Himself, but His mother and His brothers as well.  His material would be regarded as a primary source, by historical standards.  Mark was too young to have been one of the Disciples (although he apparently witnessed Jesus' arrest at Gethsemane), but according to Papias (writing about 110 AD, fifty years after the three Synoptic Gospels were written), Mark was the companion of Simon Peter, who made the journey to Rome with him and acted as Peter's interpreter to the Latin-speaking audience there.  His Gospel is made up of the stories of Jesus that Simon Peter told, and he had ample opportunity to make sure those stories were faithfully recorded.  Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, and by his own admission not a disciple of Jesus.  However, in his own words, he gathered the testimony  "as it was passed down to us by those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the word, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning,  it seemed good to me to draw up an account for you . . ."  With those words he begins a Gospel that features painstaking attention to historical detail, and follows it up with a careful history of the formative years of the church that followed, which we know as the Book of Acts.  Luke obviously consulted Mark's and probably Matthew's gospels, and in his travels would have had the chance to meet John, Peter, the brothers of Jesus, and probably the aging Mary, Jesus' mother, as well.  One other note, while I am on the topic - you will note that the Book of Acts ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome, awaiting trial before Nero.  We know from the letter of I Clement (about 90 AD) that Peter and Paul were both executed in Rome after the Great Fire of 66 AD but before the end of Nero's reign in 68.  Since Luke makes no mention of these significant events, it is most likely they had not happened at the time he wrote his gospel, or the book of Acts.  That puts the terminal date for Acts around 62 AD, when Paul was awaiting trial.  Which means Mark and probably Matthew were completed earlier still, around 60 or before.  So you are talking about a gap of some 27 years after the Resurrection, if 33 is the correct date, which most scholars now feel certain it is. As someone who graduated high school nearly 30 years ago, I can tell you that I have a pretty good memory for events that happened in the early 1980's.  Particularly events that were of great importance to my own life.
You see, I'm also skeptic about the writers of the gospel.

Quote
but he drew his histories from earlier sources that no longer exist.
Possibly, but I need more proof than a source that may have existed sometime.

[quote What He could do, and DID do, was teach a moral and ethical code, which, when perfectly followed. spelled the death knell of slavery.  How can you "love your neighbor as yourself" while buying or selling him at the auction block.  Christ came to end man's spiritual slavery to sin, which, in the eternal scale of things, was a far worse problem than the human labor system known as slavery.  [/quote]
Well, obviously, that didn't work.
Also, how hard would've it been for him to say: "Slavery is an abomination."?
That would've cleared a few things up.

Also, Jesus said that:
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And this is what Leviticus says:
25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Quote
Now, as to your last reference, I had to look it up tpo figure out what you were referring to.  I did not recognize it for the simple reason that you took it so far from its clear meaning!  Jesus condemned the Jewish leaders for ducking the ancient commandment to "honor father and mother" by simply pledging to give their earthly goods to the Temple (at some point in the future), and then using that as an excuse not to take financial care of their aging parents.  While he does briefly cite the ancient Mosaic code: "Let him who speaks evil of his mother or father, be put to death," there is no hint that he was advocating killing anyone - simply shaming the Pharisees for using a hollow religious oath to duck out on their responsibility for taking care of their parents as long as they lived.  In an age with no nursing homes or social security, abandoning elderly parents was considered an egregious sin - especially for people who held themselves up as spiritual leaders.

Possibly, but that still doesn't change the fact that the old testament requires you to kill/beat disobedient children, and as the quote above shows(5:17), Jesus approves of this sick and immoral law.
I must add though, the new testament's morals are an improvement over that of the old's. I really like the golden rule, but Jesus wasn't the first one to say it.

Also, let me clarify my point: I don't think that it's impossible that a man named Jesus existed. He may have been a rabbi/philosopher in his age. But even if he existed, I think most of what we know about him is a myth.

Quote
I love to debate, but always with respect and affection. Cheers
We can agree on that. Cheers




Quote
Not inner peace, salvation.  There is a difference.  You can be at peace with yourself, but still offend others, or God.  Assuming that God exists and that he created humanity (how doesn't matter), he would have expectations to determine if his creation was worth keeping.  Think of it this way: you make a machine.  One day it breaks, and can no longer do everything you need.  Now, you made this machine; you don't want to just throw it away.  Still it is impractical to keep something that doesn't work.  What do you do?  First you will probably try to fix it.  If that doesn't work, you will scrap it.  Jesus is God's attempt to fix humanity. 
Hitchens puts it really well: "I will not be told, "I have a supernatural offer for you, and you can be redeemed if you believe just in me, and if you don't like it you can be tortured forever." I won't be talked to like that. That is the language of fascism and dictatorship."

Logged
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2591
Posts: 15182


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #36 on: April 11, 2012, 06:25:02 AM »

Or you coud look at it this way: If you choose to voluntarily separate yourself from God throughout this life, he will HONOR YOUR CHOICE by separating you from Him for eternity.  After all, to forcibly impose Himself on you for eternity after you have rejected Him altogether - wouldn't that be the spiritual equivalent of rape?
Logged

"I shall smite you in the nostrils with a rod of iron, and wax your spleen with Efferdent!!"
Cthulhu
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 253
Posts: 2138



« Reply #37 on: April 11, 2012, 06:28:51 AM »

Or you coud look at it this way: If you choose to voluntarily separate yourself from God throughout this life, he will HONOR YOUR CHOICE by separating you from Him for eternity.  After all, to forcibly impose Himself on you for eternity after you have rejected Him altogether - wouldn't that be the spiritual equivalent of rape?
Is this directed at me? And by seperating himself from me, you mean I'll go to hell? Pitchforks, lake of fire and all?
Just to make it clear, I'm not mad, or mocking you, I'm just curious.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 06:34:15 AM by Cthulhu » Logged
Pacman000
Guest
« Reply #38 on: April 11, 2012, 09:54:09 AM »

Quote
Hitchens puts it really well: "I will not be told, "I have a supernatural offer for you, and you can be redeemed if you believe just in me, and if you don't like it you can be tortured forever." I won't be talked to like that. That is the language of fascism and dictatorship."
The argument depends on the idea that God made humanity.  If you made something, should you not be able to do whatever you want with it? 

Quote
Okay, I'm willing to accept that. However, I could get into why that doesn't make any sense if Jesus was of divine origin.
The Jews were God's chosen people; he came to them first to fulfill prophesies sent specifically to them.

Logged
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #39 on: April 11, 2012, 10:20:15 AM »

Indy,

I understand you are a man of faith, and therefore, you believe with all of your heart that the gospels are historically accurate and written at the time of the events they depict. You HAVE to believe that, because if you don't, then your beliefs can be questioned. I get it. It doesn't make it so.

It is because of your faith that you must reject any scholar or historian who proposes a theory or possibility that contradicts it.

It is likewise because of your faith that you must endeavor to discredit any who would do so, and accept without question authors who cherry-pick history to serve their agendas. I'm not saying that some historians who question Jesus' divinity, the historical accuracy of the Bible, or even his existence, also do not have an agenda, some of them do. However, as a man of professed and deep faith, you are at an objective disadvantage from the start, because you HAVE to believe the Bible as the truth. This is evident in the fact that you would trust the agendad-driven historical observations of a man like David Barton, who cherry-picks history in the interest of serving his evangelical activism. Because of this, secular historians are always going to be more objective evaluators of history by default.

You have every right to be offended by that, just like I have every right to be offended that you consider yourself a better family man than me by default because of your faith.

Cthulu,

I understand that you have difficulties with Christianity. So do I, but then I have significant problems with religion in general. I have to say, however, that you do appear to be driven by an agenda as well. I’m not saying that my research or evaluation of history does not get influenced by my disdain for religion. I admit it sometimes does. But I do my best to be driven primarily by reason, though I sometimes fail in that endeavor.

As for my own take on the historocity of Jesus, I don’t really take a position because this is a topic that is just far too obscured by time, missing history, and distortion (not just by Christians) to even begin to know the real story. I do believe that the stories presented in the four Gospels have evolved and been embellished by those of faith. I don’t know how anybody with a reasonable bone in their body could refute that as a perfectly reasonable assumption. ALL history has been manipulated and massaged to serve agendas to some degree, so why would Christian history be any different? I would propose that religious agendas outweigh political agendas in terms of how far-reaching and tenacious they are. Is it a shame that non-Biblical evidence of Jesus’ life is so thin? Yes it is, because I would love to know more about the events surrounding his life, if for no other reason than they have had such lasting impact on a significant portion of recorded history. Some will say that it is because of this impact that I SHOULD believe, because if it has had such impact for as long as it has then it MUST be the work of God. I guess there is a certain kind of logic to that thinking, and not something that I reject outright, but wouldn’t that suggest I should be a Jew rather than a Christian? I mean, Judaism has been around and impacting the history of the world for far longer, hasn’t it?

That’s it, where’s the nearest synagogue?
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 3100
Posts: 26769


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 11, 2012, 10:38:12 AM »

Glad we got that all sorted out and everyone's in agreement now.  TongueOut
Logged

I'll take you places the hand of man has not yet set foot...
Cthulhu
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 253
Posts: 2138



« Reply #41 on: April 11, 2012, 10:38:28 AM »

Quote
Hitchens puts it really well: "I will not be told, "I have a supernatural offer for you, and you can be redeemed if you believe just in me, and if you don't like it you can be tortured forever." I won't be talked to like that. That is the language of fascism and dictatorship."
The argument depends on the idea that God made humanity.  If you made something, should you not be able to do whatever you want with it?  

Quote
Okay, I'm willing to accept that. However, I could get into why that doesn't make any sense if Jesus was of divine origin.
The Jews were God's chosen people; he came to them first to fulfill prophesies sent specifically to them.


By your logic, child abuse and slavery is perfectly okay. You "made" your child, so you can do whatever you want with him.
You own your slave, so do as you please.

As for jews being god's chosen people-your god has a sick sense of humor, looking at the history of the jewish people.

But we're straying off topic. This thread was about Jesus. Let's stop arguing.

Indy,

I understand you are a man of faith, and therefore, you believe with all of your heart that the gospels are historically accurate and written at the time of the events they depict. You HAVE to believe that, because if you don't, then your beliefs can be questioned. I get it. It doesn't make it so.

It is because of your faith that you must reject any scholar or historian who proposes a theory or possibility that contradicts it.

It is likewise because of your faith that you must endeavor to discredit any who would do so, and accept without question authors who cherry-pick history to serve their agendas. I'm not saying that some historians who question Jesus' divinity, the historical accuracy of the Bible, or even his existence, also do not have an agenda, some of them do. However, as a man of professed and deep faith, you are at an objective disadvantage from the start, because you HAVE to believe the Bible as the truth. This is evident in the fact that you would trust the agendad-driven historical observations of a man like David Barton, who cherry-picks history in the interest of serving his evangelical activism. Because of this, secular historians are always going to be more objective evaluators of history by default.

You have every right to be offended by that, just like I have every right to be offended that you consider yourself a better family man than me by default because of your faith.

Cthulu,

I understand that you have difficulties with Christianity. So do I, but then I have significant problems with religion in general. I have to say, however, that you do appear to be driven by an agenda as well. I’m not saying that my research or evaluation of history does not get influenced by my disdain for religion. I admit it sometimes does. But I do my best to be driven primarily by reason, though I sometimes fail in that endeavor.

As for my own take on the historocity of Jesus, I don’t really take a position because this is a topic that is just far too obscured by time, missing history, and distortion (not just by Christians) to even begin to know the real story. I do believe that the stories presented in the four Gospels have evolved and been embellished by those of faith. I don’t know how anybody with a reasonable bone in their body could refute that as a perfectly reasonable assumption. ALL history has been manipulated and massaged to serve agendas to some degree, so why would Christian history be any different? I would propose that religious agendas outweigh political agendas in terms of how far-reaching and tenacious they are. Is it a shame that non-Biblical evidence of Jesus’ life is so thin? Yes it is, because I would love to know more about the events surrounding his life, if for no other reason than they have had such lasting impact on a significant portion of recorded history. Some will say that it is because of this impact that I SHOULD believe, because if it has had such impact for as long as it has then it MUST be the work of God. I guess there is a certain kind of logic to that thinking, and not something that I reject outright, but wouldn’t that suggest I should be a Jew rather than a Christian? I mean, Judaism has been around and impacting the history of the world for far longer, hasn’t it?

That’s it, where’s the nearest synagogue?


Trust me, I too have a problem with religion in general .
However, I'll be the first to admit that there is still a lot of research ahead of me on the topic of Jesus. As I said, he may have existed, but there are just too many similarities with other messiahs. (Is that how you  spell that?)
I'm no expert on this topic. I still have books to read, and articles to browse. I try to gather as much information as I can.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 10:41:08 AM by Cthulhu » Logged
alandhopewell
A NorthCoaster In Texas
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 341
Posts: 3157


Hey....white women were in season.


WWW
« Reply #42 on: April 11, 2012, 01:05:01 PM »

Quote
OK, let's address your points. 
First of all, going first to the Jews, then to the Samaritans, is NOT a contradiction.  Jesus started his disciples off by sending them to a local audience, which was more likely to be receptive, then LED them to a more hostile audience, then SENT them to all the world.  That's not contradictory, it's just a solid tutorial approach. Start local, go global. Good business sense.
Okay, I'm willing to accept that. However, I could get into why that doesn't make any sense if Jesus was of divine origin.


Quote
Now, on the issue of Jesus' death, he was a Jew, he died in a city of the Jews, and it was Jewish religious leaders who pushed a Roman governor into sentencing him to death.  That's not anti-Semitism, it's simply what happened.  There weren't any blond-haired blue-eyed Norwegians in the crowd. Other than the Roman garrison and maybe a few merchants and Greek tourists, everybody in Jerusalem for Passover was Jewish!  The deeds and words of Jesus that inspired such hostility had their roots in his interpretation of Jewish law, and would have inflamed NO ONE but a Jew.  So of course the Jews of Jerusalem - particularly their religious and political leaders, were responsible for his death.  Since Jesus and every one of his 12 disciples were Jews, making such a claim is NOT anti-Semitic.  It simply records what happened.
Yes, indeed they were jewish, but they have accepted Jesus as their master. They believed he was the son of god. Other jews have not, since the religious tension. Although take what I'm saying here with a grain of salt, as I'm not as well versed in early church history as I'd like to be.

Quote
And of course, the usual slander of the early Christians: "uneducated, superstitious" etc.  Jews of the First Century were one of the most literate peoples governed by Rome.  From the age of six until they were men, they divided their time between learning their trade and studying under their rabbis.  Most of them were bilingual, speaking Greek and Aramaic.  Many had a smattering of Latin also.  They were a hard-working people, close to the earth, who lived through some very rough times.  It's easy for us to be dismissive of them 2,000 years later, but I daresay they were not the ignorant rubes you make them out to be.
      As far as the Gospels go - Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written within the same decade, between 30 and 60 AD, by men who knew each other.  Matthew was one of the original 12 disciples and an eyewitness of most of the events he described.  He would have known not only Jesus Himself, but His mother and His brothers as well.  His material would be regarded as a primary source, by historical standards.  Mark was too young to have been one of the Disciples (although he apparently witnessed Jesus' arrest at Gethsemane), but according to Papias (writing about 110 AD, fifty years after the three Synoptic Gospels were written), Mark was the companion of Simon Peter, who made the journey to Rome with him and acted as Peter's interpreter to the Latin-speaking audience there.  His Gospel is made up of the stories of Jesus that Simon Peter told, and he had ample opportunity to make sure those stories were faithfully recorded.  Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, and by his own admission not a disciple of Jesus.  However, in his own words, he gathered the testimony  "as it was passed down to us by those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the word, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning,  it seemed good to me to draw up an account for you . . ."  With those words he begins a Gospel that features painstaking attention to historical detail, and follows it up with a careful history of the formative years of the church that followed, which we know as the Book of Acts.  Luke obviously consulted Mark's and probably Matthew's gospels, and in his travels would have had the chance to meet John, Peter, the brothers of Jesus, and probably the aging Mary, Jesus' mother, as well.  One other note, while I am on the topic - you will note that the Book of Acts ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome, awaiting trial before Nero.  We know from the letter of I Clement (about 90 AD) that Peter and Paul were both executed in Rome after the Great Fire of 66 AD but before the end of Nero's reign in 68.  Since Luke makes no mention of these significant events, it is most likely they had not happened at the time he wrote his gospel, or the book of Acts.  That puts the terminal date for Acts around 62 AD, when Paul was awaiting trial.  Which means Mark and probably Matthew were completed earlier still, around 60 or before.  So you are talking about a gap of some 27 years after the Resurrection, if 33 is the correct date, which most scholars now feel certain it is. As someone who graduated high school nearly 30 years ago, I can tell you that I have a pretty good memory for events that happened in the early 1980's.  Particularly events that were of great importance to my own life.
You see, I'm also skeptic about the writers of the gospel.

Quote
but he drew his histories from earlier sources that no longer exist.
Possibly, but I need more proof than a source that may have existed sometime.

[quote What He could do, and DID do, was teach a moral and ethical code, which, when perfectly followed. spelled the death knell of slavery.  How can you "love your neighbor as yourself" while buying or selling him at the auction block.  Christ came to end man's spiritual slavery to sin, which, in the eternal scale of things, was a far worse problem than the human labor system known as slavery. 
Well, obviously, that didn't work.
Also, how hard would've it been for him to say: "Slavery is an abomination."?
That would've cleared a few things up.

Also, Jesus said that:
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And this is what Leviticus says:
25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Quote
Now, as to your last reference, I had to look it up tpo figure out what you were referring to.  I did not recognize it for the simple reason that you took it so far from its clear meaning!  Jesus condemned the Jewish leaders for ducking the ancient commandment to "honor father and mother" by simply pledging to give their earthly goods to the Temple (at some point in the future), and then using that as an excuse not to take financial care of their aging parents.  While he does briefly cite the ancient Mosaic code: "Let him who speaks evil of his mother or father, be put to death," there is no hint that he was advocating killing anyone - simply shaming the Pharisees for using a hollow religious oath to duck out on their responsibility for taking care of their parents as long as they lived.  In an age with no nursing homes or social security, abandoning elderly parents was considered an egregious sin - especially for people who held themselves up as spiritual leaders.

Possibly, but that still doesn't change the fact that the old testament requires you to kill/beat disobedient children, and as the quote above shows(5:17), Jesus approves of this sick and immoral law.
I must add though, the new testament's morals are an improvement over that of the old's. I really like the golden rule, but Jesus wasn't the first one to say it.

Also, let me clarify my point: I don't think that it's impossible that a man named Jesus existed. He may have been a rabbi/philosopher in his age. But even if he existed, I think most of what we know about him is a myth.

Quote
I love to debate, but always with respect and affection. Cheers
We can agree on that. Cheers




Quote
Not inner peace, salvation.  There is a difference.  You can be at peace with yourself, but still offend others, or God.  Assuming that God exists and that he created humanity (how doesn't matter), he would have expectations to determine if his creation was worth keeping.  Think of it this way: you make a machine.  One day it breaks, and can no longer do everything you need.  Now, you made this machine; you don't want to just throw it away.  Still it is impractical to keep something that doesn't work.  What do you do?  First you will probably try to fix it.  If that doesn't work, you will scrap it.  Jesus is God's attempt to fix humanity. 
Hitchens puts it really well: "I will not be told, "I have a supernatural offer for you, and you can be redeemed if you believe just in me, and if you don't like it you can be tortured forever." I won't be talked to like that. That is the language of fascism and dictatorship."


[/quote]

     You're forgetting one thing; you're not dealing with a sinful, imperfect man, who would indeed be dictatorial if he made such a statement, but GOD, sinless, perfect, all-powerful.

     God does not "send people to Hell", but if they don't want to be with Him, He must put them somewhere.  What makes Hell "Hell" is the fact that it is separated from God.
Logged

If it's true what they say, that GOD created us in His image, then why should we not love creating, and why should we not continue to do so, as carefully and ethically as we can, on whatever scale we're capable of?

     The choice is simple; refuse to create, and refuse to grow, or build, with care and love.
Cthulhu
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 253
Posts: 2138



« Reply #43 on: April 11, 2012, 03:19:15 PM »

Quote
OK, let's address your points. 
First of all, going first to the Jews, then to the Samaritans, is NOT a contradiction.  Jesus started his disciples off by sending them to a local audience, which was more likely to be receptive, then LED them to a more hostile audience, then SENT them to all the world.  That's not contradictory, it's just a solid tutorial approach. Start local, go global. Good business sense.
Okay, I'm willing to accept that. However, I could get into why that doesn't make any sense if Jesus was of divine origin.


Quote
Now, on the issue of Jesus' death, he was a Jew, he died in a city of the Jews, and it was Jewish religious leaders who pushed a Roman governor into sentencing him to death.  That's not anti-Semitism, it's simply what happened.  There weren't any blond-haired blue-eyed Norwegians in the crowd. Other than the Roman garrison and maybe a few merchants and Greek tourists, everybody in Jerusalem for Passover was Jewish!  The deeds and words of Jesus that inspired such hostility had their roots in his interpretation of Jewish law, and would have inflamed NO ONE but a Jew.  So of course the Jews of Jerusalem - particularly their religious and political leaders, were responsible for his death.  Since Jesus and every one of his 12 disciples were Jews, making such a claim is NOT anti-Semitic.  It simply records what happened.
Yes, indeed they were jewish, but they have accepted Jesus as their master. They believed he was the son of god. Other jews have not, since the religious tension. Although take what I'm saying here with a grain of salt, as I'm not as well versed in early church history as I'd like to be.

Quote
And of course, the usual slander of the early Christians: "uneducated, superstitious" etc.  Jews of the First Century were one of the most literate peoples governed by Rome.  From the age of six until they were men, they divided their time between learning their trade and studying under their rabbis.  Most of them were bilingual, speaking Greek and Aramaic.  Many had a smattering of Latin also.  They were a hard-working people, close to the earth, who lived through some very rough times.  It's easy for us to be dismissive of them 2,000 years later, but I daresay they were not the ignorant rubes you make them out to be.
      As far as the Gospels go - Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written within the same decade, between 30 and 60 AD, by men who knew each other.  Matthew was one of the original 12 disciples and an eyewitness of most of the events he described.  He would have known not only Jesus Himself, but His mother and His brothers as well.  His material would be regarded as a primary source, by historical standards.  Mark was too young to have been one of the Disciples (although he apparently witnessed Jesus' arrest at Gethsemane), but according to Papias (writing about 110 AD, fifty years after the three Synoptic Gospels were written), Mark was the companion of Simon Peter, who made the journey to Rome with him and acted as Peter's interpreter to the Latin-speaking audience there.  His Gospel is made up of the stories of Jesus that Simon Peter told, and he had ample opportunity to make sure those stories were faithfully recorded.  Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, and by his own admission not a disciple of Jesus.  However, in his own words, he gathered the testimony  "as it was passed down to us by those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the word, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning,  it seemed good to me to draw up an account for you . . ."  With those words he begins a Gospel that features painstaking attention to historical detail, and follows it up with a careful history of the formative years of the church that followed, which we know as the Book of Acts.  Luke obviously consulted Mark's and probably Matthew's gospels, and in his travels would have had the chance to meet John, Peter, the brothers of Jesus, and probably the aging Mary, Jesus' mother, as well.  One other note, while I am on the topic - you will note that the Book of Acts ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome, awaiting trial before Nero.  We know from the letter of I Clement (about 90 AD) that Peter and Paul were both executed in Rome after the Great Fire of 66 AD but before the end of Nero's reign in 68.  Since Luke makes no mention of these significant events, it is most likely they had not happened at the time he wrote his gospel, or the book of Acts.  That puts the terminal date for Acts around 62 AD, when Paul was awaiting trial.  Which means Mark and probably Matthew were completed earlier still, around 60 or before.  So you are talking about a gap of some 27 years after the Resurrection, if 33 is the correct date, which most scholars now feel certain it is. As someone who graduated high school nearly 30 years ago, I can tell you that I have a pretty good memory for events that happened in the early 1980's.  Particularly events that were of great importance to my own life.
You see, I'm also skeptic about the writers of the gospel.

Quote
but he drew his histories from earlier sources that no longer exist.
Possibly, but I need more proof than a source that may have existed sometime.

[quote What He could do, and DID do, was teach a moral and ethical code, which, when perfectly followed. spelled the death knell of slavery.  How can you "love your neighbor as yourself" while buying or selling him at the auction block.  Christ came to end man's spiritual slavery to sin, which, in the eternal scale of things, was a far worse problem than the human labor system known as slavery. 
Well, obviously, that didn't work.
Also, how hard would've it been for him to say: "Slavery is an abomination."?
That would've cleared a few things up.

Also, Jesus said that:
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And this is what Leviticus says:
25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Quote
Now, as to your last reference, I had to look it up tpo figure out what you were referring to.  I did not recognize it for the simple reason that you took it so far from its clear meaning!  Jesus condemned the Jewish leaders for ducking the ancient commandment to "honor father and mother" by simply pledging to give their earthly goods to the Temple (at some point in the future), and then using that as an excuse not to take financial care of their aging parents.  While he does briefly cite the ancient Mosaic code: "Let him who speaks evil of his mother or father, be put to death," there is no hint that he was advocating killing anyone - simply shaming the Pharisees for using a hollow religious oath to duck out on their responsibility for taking care of their parents as long as they lived.  In an age with no nursing homes or social security, abandoning elderly parents was considered an egregious sin - especially for people who held themselves up as spiritual leaders.

Possibly, but that still doesn't change the fact that the old testament requires you to kill/beat disobedient children, and as the quote above shows(5:17), Jesus approves of this sick and immoral law.
I must add though, the new testament's morals are an improvement over that of the old's. I really like the golden rule, but Jesus wasn't the first one to say it.

Also, let me clarify my point: I don't think that it's impossible that a man named Jesus existed. He may have been a rabbi/philosopher in his age. But even if he existed, I think most of what we know about him is a myth.

Quote
I love to debate, but always with respect and affection. Cheers
We can agree on that. Cheers




Quote
Not inner peace, salvation.  There is a difference.  You can be at peace with yourself, but still offend others, or God.  Assuming that God exists and that he created humanity (how doesn't matter), he would have expectations to determine if his creation was worth keeping.  Think of it this way: you make a machine.  One day it breaks, and can no longer do everything you need.  Now, you made this machine; you don't want to just throw it away.  Still it is impractical to keep something that doesn't work.  What do you do?  First you will probably try to fix it.  If that doesn't work, you will scrap it.  Jesus is God's attempt to fix humanity. 
Hitchens puts it really well: "I will not be told, "I have a supernatural offer for you, and you can be redeemed if you believe just in me, and if you don't like it you can be tortured forever." I won't be talked to like that. That is the language of fascism and dictatorship."



     You're forgetting one thing; you're not dealing with a sinful, imperfect man, who would indeed be dictatorial if he made such a statement, but GOD, sinless, perfect, all-powerful.

     God does not "send people to Hell", but if they don't want to be with Him, He must put them somewhere.  What makes Hell "Hell" is the fact that it is separated from God.
[/quote]
YOU are saying that I'm not dealing with a sinful, imperfect man, but god.
I, on the other hand, don't believe a word of that.
Logged
macabre
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 36
Posts: 220


I'M COMING FOR YOU!


« Reply #44 on: April 11, 2012, 03:34:09 PM »

hi
I must confess having read the title for  this thread i was somewhat concerned that it may invoke an argument between some of you guys.Religion is a notorious subject to debate and being such a personal subject i could see quite a few snide remarks surface. How pleased i am to admit that this was not the case,all who have answered Indy's question has done so with respect and admiration.You guys really are a rare breed of people and it is because of your respect and diversity that Andrew should feel proud of bringing you together on this site.
       

       KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK AND LONG MAY YOUR FRIENDSHIP CONTINUE.
Logged

GEEZ! I NEVER REALISED A BRAIN WEIGHED SO MUCH.
WHY HAVE YOU GOT A KNIFE IN YOUR HAND? I HAVEN'T IT'S IN YOUR CHEST.
A MARATHON! MY WIFE COULDN'T RUN A BATH WITHOUT FEELING TIRED.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Special Poll for Easter - WHO WAS JESUS OF NAZARETH? « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.