Originally posted by jaden101
mm...lets see....none of the flag raisers...1st or 2nd flag were black...and to my knowlege...none of the Japanese were blackhence...no black people
shame really
...But we should put blacks as Japanese anyway.
I want to see a remake of Gone With The Wind, but make all the slave owners black and the slaves white. 😆
Originally posted by Schecter
hahahano, i mean that bush simply didnt give a shit, which all his actions during and after the disaster pretty much proves. no conspiracy. no plot to destroy the black community. he just doesnt give a shit.
You know what that really implies, right? That implies that Dubya knewed his geographicles.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
It was in the earlier post, but here you go:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/relig...edjesus_2.shtmlNot taking this topic there again, promise.
Sorry, I did not see it.
If I had, I would not have asked.
Also, I would not have asked if I thought it were true that the Imperial authorities in Rome had called for a provincial administrator to travel all that way to answer for the execution of one of the many fringe Jews claiming to be the messiah. It simply does not make sense.
Originally posted by Devil King
In many ways I agree with you. However, if a story from history is not entertaining enough for it to be told accurately, then perhaps it should not be told at all. Especially since I have friends who go nuts over Braveheart, and from the moment they saw it they walked out of the theater and assumed they'd just watched an accurate protrayl of the life and times of Wallace. However the counter to that point are those of my friends that used it as a jumping off point. My friend Eric is of Scottish decent and he actually started researching the true history of Wallace and Scottland and actually learned the actual history of the man and the land. So, I guess it is really up to the individual viewer. Eric bettered his understanding of his heritage as well as enjoyed the movie. But we're all familiar with the quote "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend". And far too often the facts get lost in the legend. And it can only be for the betterment of everyone when the legend becomes fact, we print the facts.(pay no attention to the fact that I LOVE Reign: The Conqueror)
I think the proper term would be Historical Fiction. I also think that historical fiction have been around for ages but in different forms. Troy for example, I think it was meant to be taken as historical fiction put in a poetry but became fact for some people.
I think that films that use history should be more measure on how much were you entertain by the story than by the events depicted in the story (running sentence....sorry)
Case in point. I really liked Apocalypto.
Originally posted by Devil King
Sorry, I did not see it.If I had, I would not have asked.
Also, I would not have asked if I thought it were true that the Imperial authorities in Rome had called for a provincial administrator to travel all that way to answer for the execution of one of the many fringe Jews claiming to be the messiah. It simply does not make sense.
No worries.
The article is pretty informative on the cultural situation of the time.
It wasn't so much that Pilot executed a prisoner, it was that the prisoner was loved and adored by many, and also hated and scorned by many who would riot if he wasn't killed.
The Passover Amnesty releasing of the prisoner who killed Roman soldiers may have been part of it, but I image that governor was probably in more trouble for letting such a person (Jesus) arise in any kind of power, gather a following, cause civil unrest, etc...
Yeah, I don't see him gaing much power. That's why I take acception with what the BBC is saying. Jesus wasn't powerful, otherwise there would be more corresponding records. And the idea that Pilate killed himself right after, as though it would have something to do with the crucifiction of Jesus. I don't see Jesus causing much of a blip of the Roman radar, is my point.
Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, I don't see him gaing much power. That's why I take acception with what the BBC is saying. Jesus wasn't powerful, otherwise there would be more corresponding records. And the idea that Pilate killed himself right after, as though it would have something to do with the crucifiction of Jesus. I don't see Jesus causing much of a blip of the Roman radar, is my point.
He had a rather large following, and was hailed as the new king on Passover by a huge crowd... how many thousands isn't really on record.
That's kinda a big deal. Remember, that king Herod tried to have all the firstborn Hebrew babies killed 33 years earlier just because a couple guys saw something in the stars. He was a Jewish king, but very pro-Roman and funded and supported by them to control his territory as they'd like.
I think that there weren't many corresponding records of Jesus followers and his "power" with the people (if you're not counting the bible as a record) is because the movement was just starting to gain widespread notice. Before it was centralized in a few small villages and towns. Many large crowds gathered, and his teachings already angered people, but when he came riding into the capital and the people fell at his feet is when the stakes suddenly jumped.
In any event, it's recorded that he had some followers and also had many people who wanted him killed that day, which is why Pilate feared the riot. He probably didn't know much about Jesus of Nazareth, other than that he seemed like a chill dude who was innocent.
Also, I didn't mean to infer that he killed himself because of the crucifixion, necessarily. My guess would be more that he was depressed over failing to control his province, knew his emperor would be angry, and that he'd be killed anyway. So he did them a favor and killed himself.
But incredible as it may sound, it seems historically accurate that the events transpired exactly as portrayed in The Passion. He was teaching crowds, he grew in influence, was hated by religious leaders, entered the capital to wide praise and worship, was arrested and charged, found not guilty, picked for death over Barabbas, and then crucified. Gibsons film portrays it just like that.
That's not really the question, the question is did he rise from the dead after and is he the son of God?(for the religion forum, obviously)
Originally posted by botankus
If he's that pissed about it, I think Spike Lee should re-make "Flags of Our Fathers" with Usher, Flavor Flav, Michael Vick, and Bill Cosby raising the flag.
Now that would be a great remake!
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Well then if he had no power of influence over people and wasn't causing a problem with the religious leaders of the day then why was he crucified?
Regional turmoil or recognition is not my point. That anyone in Rome would consider him is my point. as has been pointed out, I can see some form of ecord being manufactured after the entire empire went Christian. But it actually happening in a contemporary form strikes me as totally silly. And if Pilate required punishment or inquiry in his time, what effect did Jesus' death actually have on the region?