Cleopatra: Portrait of a Killer
6.64
Ratings: 6.64/10 from 61 users.
Cleopatra - the most famous woman in history. We know her as a great queen, a beautiful lover and a political schemer. For 2,000 years almost all evidence of her has disappeared - until now.
In one of the world's most exciting finds, archaeologists believe they have discovered the skeleton of her sister, murdered by Cleopatra and Mark Antony.
From Egypt to Turkey, Neil Oliver investigates the story of a ruthless queen who would kill her own siblings for power. This is the portrait of a killer.
It's interesting that a documentary that MIGHT explain what happened to Cleopatra's sister turned into a religious debate and then a racial one. I have had too many question the original cover of my book, "The Early Scrolls" when I had an obviously pale-skinned Egyptian figure on the cover (a character of my own who was half Egyptian). I was tired of explaining to people "read the book, it is all in there, and she is even compared to the "darker skinned desert people." The ancient Egyptians, in reality, were darker skinned, but NOT what we term as "blacks" today. Some were, but most had a distinct brown color to their skin darker than whites but lighter than full Africans. In Cleopatra's time, so much Greek/Roman/Egyptian mix came into play, that colors varied widely.
This documentary like so many others is more about theatrics than the facts. I also have serious doubts that the young pharaoh's cause of death was drowning due to him wearing too much gold. That sounds too much like roman propaganda passed off unquestionably as fact.
Also the stories of her legendary beauty weren't even started until the Victorians and later Hollywood got a hold of the story. (artistic licence)
I've watched a few documentaries about how plain (ugly) she was; that it
was just a marriage of political convenience for both sides. Of course
though ancient females weren't celebrated for their cunning or
intelligence so she became "beautiful". Her skull told a different
story. This guy narrating isn't even a historian. He is just an
archeologist and apparently real historians quit his other documentary
about Scotland over historical inaccuracies.
the actor who plays the Roman narrator played a similar role in the TV series Rome :o)
This is so full of rubbish! What about the fact that Cleopatra was a skilled diplomat, talented linguists, as well as an able ruler who was loved by her people? They have completely glossed over the fact that Arsinoe and her brother would totally have Cleopatra killed if they weren't killed first! What a single sided portrayal of Cleopatra! I only watched the first 20 mins and I can't bare to finish this!
She was the last pharaoh of Egypt and of greek nationality, actually. After alexander the great's conquest and death, land was split up into 3 rulers. She was the descendant of one of them. This was after the ancient egyptians were taken over by Greeks, nobody is trying to remove blacks from history. Its a pretty accurate movie, and it's good if you're interested in it, though it's pretty long.
Exactly, I don't know why they have a white woman on the picture. I don't mean this in a rude way towards white ppl at all, but that very thing makes me not even want to watch it because I know it's gonna be a crock of bull just from the falsehood of the picture. I've seen real life mummies and they had "dread locks" in their hair just like the ones I wear,cleary black ppl, no if's ands or buts about it, no excuses or denials. Yet they still try to remove Egypt from Africa and represent the ppl as if they were anything other than black..uh uh, no thankx not even going to bother watching, it already looks like a lie. I agree with you. I also appreciate those ppl who can admit the truth that-Ancient- Egyptians were black just like the Nubians whom they worked with as well.
The white woman in the picture is Elizabeth Taylor, the actress who portrayed Cleopatra in the 1963 film named for the titular character.
She was the last pharaoh of Egypt and of greek nationality, actually. After alexander the great's conquest and death, land was split up into 3 rulers. She was the descendant of one of them. This was after the ancient egyptians were taken over by Greeks, nobody is trying to remove blacks from history. Its a pretty accurate movie, and it's good if you're interested in it, though it's pretty long.
umm egypt is in north africa... mostly white people while the blacks were all in south africa...
The best thing I can suggest you do, is educate yourself. Above and beyond those Hollywood films you've clearly been indoctrinated by.
Sweety it's called invasion just like today the original Americans were not white people smh...you need to read just as Theo said.
how come the Egyptians today aren't black ?
How come America is not predominately Native American?
How come Australia is not predominately Aborigine?
How come......?
It's called Invasion! You know, that historical events where one group of people invade, murder, and culturally colonize a region, and after a period of time it's as if the invader had always been there from the beginning, when they hadn't? A bit like 'Jews' driving out Palestinians from Palestine? Yeah, that.
no one cares
Yeah when people are wrong they never care lol...smh
o dear another one of the ¨all Egypt black´ nutters. If they were black why are they not black now ?
Don't get discouraged, if the subject interests you, watch it =) You can always turn it off if it's not what you expected.
Sooo I only read the comments to see if I should watch this documentary and all I got was an insight into feminism, religious back-talk and commentary from someone who is clearly not intelligent enough to use proper English instead of profanity. Great. Thanks people! lol
sigh....just read all the comments and clearly I'm shallow. My main reason for watching is that gorgeous Scots presenter, Neil Oliver
And to L0LAW0NKA, feminism means that you believe in gender equality, so if you believe in equal rights for people of different genders then you are a feminist. It's unfortunate that people still buy into the racist and mysogynistic myth of the "feminazi."
I agree with the last comment. While learning about some of the history of Cleopatra it's obvious that this film ignored anything that Cleopatra did that required intelligence instead of her looks. The focus on her looks just delegitimizes that she was worth much more than that. I agree that this film was offensive in regards to the way it treats women who dare to break oppressive gender binaries.
I got to admit I found that program quite offensive and simplistic in its portrayal of Cleopatra. It makes no mention of the 22 years of prosperity Cleopatra brought her people neither does it mention that murdering siblings within that royal family practically amounted to a family tradition! I'm not saying that made her actions right but this programme seems to pre-suppose that her siblings wouldn't have done the same given the chance! Theres no mention of her exceptional education and little of her intelligence except in a shady light and it just exasperates me that in our 'enlightened' times we still have to see powerful, smart women making the same decisions as men made castigated as whores.
Furthermore her children which would have carried on her bloodline are completely ignored. As was the fact that Marc Antony was involved in a power struggle separate of Cleopatra as the agreement he had made with the other Roman leaders was rapidly disintegrating this gave her little choice but to join him as the fall of Marc Antony would have meant the fall of Cleopatra which in the end of course it did.
she was no different than the other woman devils today but i still love them
When it was thought that Cleopatra was a white women - she was lauded as a great leader and queen. Now that evidence provesotherwise - she is branded as a ugly, tawdry, killer.
Cleopatra's ancestory comes from the Ptolomies, which are Greek Macedonians. She is said to be a descendant of Alexander the Great, who founded and was buried in Alexander. During Cleopatra's times, there were not many Ptolomies left in ruling positions.
On her father's side. Her mother could have been Egyptian, nubian or numerous other things. She was the first one of her line to speak Egyptian so that may mean she was part Egyptian.
"Portrait of a Killer"?? Oh right. So it's okay for male pharoes to kill for power, but it's not okay when a WOMAN does it. This stupid world ruled by men. Women have as much right to kill as men do. In fact, women have proven to be better rulers than men. I'm not a feminist, but I still advocate for equal rights. If men can kill power without being judged, then women should be able to do the same.
This double-standard is encouraging me to become a notorious female serial killer or a ruthless politican. Tsk.
History, my dear, was written by men, why would expect something different. Women either need to be evil, or have some magical powers to one-up a man. They simply couldn't have done it through sheer intelligence, strategy and courage.
That was, until Christianity took over. Women were revered by the Pagans as an equals and possessing skills that most men did not.They realized that the feminine and masculine could not survive without each other. They also had fierce women warriors who left quite an impression on the Romans. Don't sell yourselves and all of us men short, ladies. A few of us still carry those ancient traits of respect and admiration for the opposite sex, but unfortunately it tends to be mistaken for weakness at times.
...as equals...apologies.
are you married? :-)
Who said it was OK for the male rulers to do it?
:(
This was amazing. It dispells the myth that cleopatra was all white and it brings to life the reality of cleopatra as a killer of her family.
Sadly I think that was the norm. Her father killed her older sister. Sounds like life at the top wasn't so safe. Look what they did to Ceasar.
The reconstruction of the skull to show what Cleopatra's sister actually looked like was extremely interesting to me; but I was also offended slightly by the title of this doc. And how do we really know that it was Cleopatra's idea and not Marc Antony's to have the sister put to death??
Why does every comment on here NO MATTER what the doc was about end up being about bloody religion - I just want to know if this doc is worth watching!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol i agree.
Cleopatra was not beautiful. She used her sexual prowess and fun making ability well. - Hunting, intelligence, and being a good sport. Women of today would do well to take heed.
"Portrait of a Killer"? A woman in power is always criticized, hated and insulted. What about ALL of the men in power who killed off everyone who stood in their way? Why are they not "killers"? Not even Hitler was referred as a killer. No, they were harsh, brutal Leaders, not killers. Fair should be fair; and if they can't be fair, then they should die.
Alexander the Great, Hitler, Stalin, Georges H.W. and W. Bush, Barack Obama, Charlemagne, John F. Kennedy, and pretty much every major political leader in history are all killers.
I agree completely! Power attracts power seekers. The more powerful the leader, the more likley they are to be sociopaths. They make the most effective leaders, (not the wisest or most compassionate), but certainly the "strongest".
what the f*** are you talking about? hitler a a mass murderer oh that means killer check your dictionary lady and read more on subjects before you comment on it! my god you are stupid, a woman in power is always criticized? where did you get your data from? your one of the reasons women get looked down on bcuz your a stupid c*** who talks s*** even though you dont know what the f*** you are talking about.
YOU'RE not doing much for men there Ortiz. Check YOUR dictionary on some words and use better judgement with YOUR choice of words. Lola San brings up an interesting point and I agree with her. Perhaps the producers called it "Portrait of a Killer" to attract attention to the new discoveries made, as opposed to the "man-made" version of Cleopatra we're all familiar with.
I agree Ortiz
Lola San is a shallow little critter and not to be taken seriously. Her argument is based entirely on her idiotic and childish notion of feminist thought.
I imagine that she thinks that a serial killer like Aileen Wuornos has some sort of excuse for her behavior because she was 'abused by men.' In her little mind Aileen was the probably the victim of a system that seeks to perpetuate a double standard for male and female killers....absurd!
And how can Lola San be so obtuse and sheltered from reality that she has never heard or read the terms killer, monster, murderer associated with freaks like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Vlad the Impaler etc etc. Normal people instantly associate the hombres I mentioned with the words Psychopathic Killer, monster, murderer, beast. But that's OK!
I am driven to wonder how Lola San our dim bulb feminist commentator would classify a creature like Elizabeth Báthory? That is, if she knows who Elizabeth Báthory was. (which I doubt)
If anyone makes an inflammatory comment about another person's religion, then please expect a defense in response. By saying how we can or cannot respond in defense, you are telling us how to practice our religion; violating our right to freedom of religion.
I'd never say you can't believe what you want, defend your beliefs, say what you want, or practice your religion. I'm for total freedom as long as your not hurting someone else. I hope I didn't come off as abrasive or condescending or anything, I was simply trying to address your post in detail. I wish you well and support your freedom.
Cody: I didn't mean you. My original response was a "someone should say something" moment, in response to some really bad comments.
I thought that after a subject comes up, it's "fair game?" But they say I'm off-topic when they next talk about something extremely off-topic.
They make the rules I guess, according to what they like; (censuring). It doesn't take talent to do these things. I'm saying I had a reaction, like "I don't think I can stand idly by for this." So it wasn't perfect, but still...
I do thank you for addressing my thoughts and for reading this, instead just saying "shut up" basically! LOL!
@Lola San, I agree with the fact that women leaders of the past have have been marked as sluts, or murderers, or any other way you could slander their reputation because some men like to think there must be some explanation, other than skill, how she could have been so powerful; but to say that if they can't be fair they should die? That's going a bit far wouldn't you say? And as the others said, there were plenty of male murderers that were named so.
And speaking of needless violence, @Ortiz, wow. You are actually scary. The fact that an opinion other than your own brought out that kind of anger and violent language is something I really think needs to be looked into.
@Cody: Yes, I see now. A couple things you told me I didn't know before; my apologies. I meant it as a simple message of Jesus because possibly you didn't know, but actually you do. Ha-*laughing at last part you wrote*! Thanks, I see you put thought into this, instead of ridiculing, which would have been easier.
@Lakalm
"It is not for me to convict your spirit."
I'm glad you realize that it is not your place to judge me, many do not. However I have still seen no evidence that there is a such thing as a "spirit" or anything like it.
"That is the work of the Holy Spirit."
No, it's not. There is no reason to believe that there is a Holy Spirit. Let's assume the Christian model of God is accurate... It created me with certain flaws and shortcomings. It made up a bunch of rules and standards it knew I was incapable of living up to (because it created me to be incapable of doing so). It gives me no evidence whatsoever that it exists. Then it tortures me for eternity in a lake of fire if I screw up guessing what it wants from me. Where does this guy get off?
"It is only for me to tell you."
Mmm, I have to disagree with you here. It's not for you to tell anyone what to do.
"The people who gave you these labels were wrong. If it were right, then you would not be able to speak kindly and take things to heart. There is a peace that surpasses all understanding, and that is my wish for you. What do you have to be guilty of?"
I can sort of guess what you're saying here, but we're speaking different languages. The people who put the guilt in me were wrong, but not because they misinterpreted the Bible or lack some special understanding of God. That guilt-trip thing is wrong because it's irrational and counterproductive to good living. There's also no reason to believe in any of it. I don't hold it against those people though - they were indoctrinated, too.
I didn't mean tell you what to do. It's your decision. I mean tell you, as in if I knew you were in a movie theater that caught fire, then I wouldn't leave without telling you.
I don't think you're indoctrinated spiritually if you're capable of free will and choice. Have you considered that you could have been indoctrinated by things not spiritual?
You limit yourself by what you see & hear. Have you ever seen a dog bark at what you cannot see & hear? There is a world taking place all around you, that you cannot see or hear.
It is you, capable of free will, not God, who will decide where you spend eternity. The choice is yours alone to make and it is the biggest decision that you will ever make.
I'm really not trying to be a jerk here. I'm sure you're a great person. But I have to call you out on a few things, mainly because I've been where you are. I used to be a die-hard Christian, and I was SO sincere and I wanted SO badly to save everyone by teaching them about Jesus and praying for them. But there came a point in my life when I grew too observant to trust the church/clergy, and later on I learned too many facts to keep believing the myths. When you go from that kind of intense faith to no faith at all, your worldview changes dramatically. I can look back now at all the times in my life I was genuinely trying to help people I cared about by telling them all the wonderful spiritual insight I thought I had, and in reality I was just being a self-righteous, patronizing jerk.
I've learned my lesson. I'm not trying to turn you into an atheist. I am, however, determined to at least point a couple of things out so you can possibly get a better idea of how other people perceive your actions, how it could hurt their feelings, and how just maybe you shouldn't be so absolutist in your ideas because, like everyone else, you don't know everything.
You've said you didn't mean to tell me what to do. When you say "Repent of your sins in the name of Jesus," you ARE actually telling everyone else what to do. That is the definition of telling someone what to do. To one who does not share your Christianity, or even your particular version of it, this comes off very badly. At best you sound nonsensical. At worst you sound self-righteous, judgmental, and dismissive of any perspectives outside your own narrow, dogmatic belief system. Bear in mind, I have personally said this kind of thing to many people in my life. I'm not judging, I understand. I just think you should understand the flip-side of it, because I sure didn't. Imagine a die-hard Muslim telling you what you should do to get right with Allah, with no concept that he could be the one who believes the wrong thing (I'm not even going to pretend I know enough about Islam to tell you what that advice might be). Anyway that's how I sounded, and that's how you sound.
The absolutist stuff like (emphasis is mine) "He is the ONLY way to God. No, there is NO OTHER WAY," is arrogant and closed-minded. It pretty much draws a line in the sand that argument is closed on the issue, that nothing could change your mind - including the truth. The truth is that you don't know the ONLY WAY to live right better than anyone else.
I'd now like to discuss your above statement that, "It is you, capable of free will, not God, who will decide where you spend eternity. The choice is yours alone to make and it is the biggest decision that you will ever make."
You're not acknowledging that this God character was under no obligation to create thinking, feeling (but severely limited) lifeforms and place them into a precarious dilemma with no clear solutions, and them punish them in the most extreme way imaginable if they failed to solve his little puzzle. Even if we "hang ourselves," so to speak, it is because this deity has supplied the rope. If we have no say in the rules of the game, don't have them clearly explained to us, and are tortured if we don't get it right, then it is the one who created the rules and put us in the situation who is responsible for the pain and torment, not us. You wouldn't think it was so loving and just if one human did it to another human, you'd think it was SICK. But because an ancient book tells you an invisible entity has done it then it must be acceptable, right?
It may seem clear-cut that there can be gods, that there is only one such god, one in particular, the Judeo-Christian "God," and even more specifically the Christian version with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It may even be clear to you what that god is like and what it expects of you, but there are as many ways of seeing things as there are people who have ever lived and will ever do so. There are many more gods than just yours (ask the Hindus or ancient Norse, Greeks, Romans, etc.), and many more ways of interpreting your god than the way in which you do (ask the Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, Gnostics, etc.). Even within these subdivisions there are (often violently) conflicting opinions. In the historical scheme of things, monotheism is a relatively new idea. What we now call Judaism began as a polytheistic religion - it's even documented in the Bible if you want to actually go read the "Old Testament" from the start, bearing this in mind.
None of that, however, remotely factors into why I do not believe in anything supernatural (including deities). One doesn't have to pick each individual religion apart bit by bit to see if there's anything plausible inside when the whole mess of them can be assessed at once by examining the basic underlying principles that they have in common. That's a discussion I don't want to get into right now because, as I said, I'm not here to "atheize" you. Just bear in mind: There is much to be uncertain about, and nothing to be certain about. Think you've got it sussed out? Go develop a mental illness - even a mild one, then see what happens to your reality.
Anyway, best wishes 'n' all that.
CG
P.S.
The dog is barking at something I can't see or hear because the dog can hear and smell things that are just not possible for humans to perceive (their eyesight's not that good, actually). It's not indicative of some hidden mysterious world of magic and miracles that I can't see because I've got my head up my orifice. Also someone told me, though I haven't verified it, that many cats are prone to hallucination. It would certainly explain a lot of what goes on at my house. Anyway, with the domesticated felines, we're back around to Egypt and the supposed topic of this discussion!!!
@Lakalm: This was a documentary about the Ptolemys, who were real live human beings, who ruled an actual earthly kingdom. There's plenty of historic records and archaeological remains to corroborate this. Your non sequitur is astoundingly off-topic.
@Winston-Smith: You nailed it. We are indeed shunned by off-world intelligent life.
Re: The documentary: I loved the overly-dramatic presentation, I think it added, err, drama to the film. We do all know that Cleopatra was reputed to be beautiful and seductive, that she was married to her brother, then became the mistress of first Julius Caeser then Marc Antony. The additional information about her family doesn't seem to be so well known and I enjoyed being able to place events that didn't always make sense to a larger context where they now do. While some of the details may be open for revision, the broad premise (that Cleopatra had her younger sister (in fact, all her siblings) killed for political reasons) seems to be supported by the evidence. A very entertaining doc! although not so flattering to the Ptolemy's parenting skills. But then, its not easy being Queen.
No, it was on-topic. I was responding to a poster who was talking about Jesus. Jesus is the King of Kings. Cleopatra was so power-mad that she stupidly killed her siblings and prostituted her body. Then she killed herself. All because it's not easy being a queen? You have too much deference for her.
@Lakalm: Actually, no, your comment was completely off-topic. The documentary was about Cleopatra, not Jesus, who was never mentioned once. However, I do find it interesting that you chose to characterize a *woman* making political liaisons as "prostituting" herself.
She was a monarch, remember? Why would you consider her to be prostituting herself by allying with a strong political power? One has to wonder how much of the 'seductress' legend came about to protect the fragile male egos involved. Maybe they just couldn't admit they'd been outwitted by a woman.
Back to the actual topic: I was considering the human aspect of being in the position that Cleopatra was in. The documentary added extra context to the few well-known facts, which was why I enjoyed it so much.+
She wasn't "power-mad", she was a monarch defending her life, her position and her country by any means she could. She was by no means the first, and certainly not the last, ruler to commit fratricide. Royal siblings are threats to one another, not loving companions. One of the downsides to dynastic monarchies.
I also doubt she was stupid. By all accounts she was intelligent and astute. She managed to survive quite well for a time, considering the threats to her person and her country. When it was clear her future was imprisonment, humiliation and (a probably painful) death, she chose her own end. That doesn't sound weak to me, it sounds like a woman in control of her life and well able to understand the consequences of her circumstances.
It truly is not easy being queen *or* king of any country when your very existence is a threat to those in power or lusting after it. Hence my comment "It's not easy being Queen."
Don't know where you got the idea I have any 'deference' for her, since I never said I approved of what she did, just that I could understand it in context.
Kateye70: I was responding to "on the bleachers," who brings up the subject of Jesus. Once the subject is brought up, you can't tell me not to respond.
The pharaohs of Egypt were not just monarchs, they were worshipped as gods. The poster is comparison/contrasting pagan gods, Egyptian, Greek, & Middle-Eastern gods & mythology, (paraphrase). He gives his interpretation of Jesus, which you don't think is off-topic. He is not off-topic because I disagree with him on one point.
It is okay for one person to bring up a subject but if anyone should comment they are off-topic?
You are trying to limit the conversation by telling people what they can or cannot say. We can say anything we want to, regarding our thoughts after watching this film. Are you the thought police?
The poster is speaking to a larger perspective that he has researched. More perspectives make the subject more interesting. The subject is very broad, and people like me are curious to know, so stop shutting people up. What do you offer; your condescending attitude or your comments that we know already?
If you don't want God brought into a subject about gods, if you don't want to hear a debate about pagan gods vs. Jesus, then what part of ancient Egypt interests you?
There are pyramids on our one-dollar bills. There are no pyramids in the U.S. Are you interested to know how they got there? The moneychangers are alive & well, & still ruling the world. It was Jesus who called them for what they were & still are today, & the economic results can be witnessed in the world today.
That's not to mention untold death, war, misery all down through the centuries; personified in the person of Cleopatra. But I can't say that, because we are only allowed to say that she was beautiful & seductive
My apologies, then; at the time I responded, the comment you are saying you referred to wasn't visible to me. It certainly appeared to be a complete non-sequitur. Obviously I should have included others in my rant.
Lol, of course I'm not the thought police, any more than you are. I just stated my opinion of your opinion.
OPINION: Quite frankly, I don't care what anyone believes. Believe and enjoy. I was exercising my own right to state that I think these "He Said-She Said-God Said" discussions are downright boring if you're not interested in preaching or being preached to.
I do have a nice copy of the "The Book of the Dead," btw. My hieroglyphicese is sadly lacking, however (I just got it for the pictures, honest!).
The documentary, on the other hand, was shedding additional light on human behavior and the politics of the time. It's called "Portrait of a Killer," not "Portrait of a Goddess."
I don't recall any portion of it discussing the Pharaohs as gods, nor mentioning Israel even in a political way.
On a lighter note, I notice you haven't chosen to respond to my question about why Cleopatra would be considered as "prostituting" herself by making political alliances, when you didn't characterize the men in those relationships the same way...Thoughts?
Kateye70: That is okay, and my apologies for being so abrupt. I mean to say that Cleopatra prostituted herself - in that she thought she would gain something in exchange for her body. The men in contrast, could at any time ignore her & go back to their world as usual, with or without her, their choice. She had all her eggs in their basket.
They could play with her at will in a way that she could not. She was depending on them to place their far greater resources at her disposal. The ultimate choice would be theirs, not hers.
She did not gain becoming queen, having an heir, power, extending her kingdom, etc. Instead she was left to die. Therefore she prostituted her body, offering it up, gaining nothing & losing everything.
The jesus narrative has strong parallels with other Middle Eastern narratives about life-death-rebirth deities, parallels that Christian apologists have tried to minimize.
A myth is a myth and Jesus is right there with Osiris, Adonis, Krishna and others in that respect.
Jesus gave His life for the forgiveness of the sins of mankind. He is the only way to God. No, there is no other way. He was both man and the son of God. Repent of your sins in the name of Jesus.
GO AWAY.
wow.. no wonder aliens won't talk to us
@Winston Smith, I really got a kick out of you 'comment'!
ROTFLMFAO.
I was going to go to bed, but now I'm getting the popcorn out.
Yay, a jesus junkie..
Tell me, isn't it odd that the story of J.C. only covers his alleged birth, his early years, then he disappears and reappears when he's 30? weird..
The fact that the books in the bible that make reference to J.C. were written 300 years AFTER he died is strange. Nobody that wrote about J.C. ever knew him.
Why the J.C. myth is set aside from over a dozen almost identical deities and taken as truth is beyond me.
Faith = Blindly believing in something/someone without any proof or substantial evidence.
You can go ahead and believe in your benevolent "god", the same "god" that spent the first half of the old testament killing people and destroying cities.. but he loves you..
The bible is nothing more that a very good philosophy book with some, SOME factual historical references. It's illogical and irrational to take the words of an edited 2000 year old book literally and apply it to modern times.
But I think that just as it is ok for some people to believe in santa claus, it's ok to believe in J.C., "god" or whatever your superstition of choice is.
from the bleachers..
im not religious either, but show some respect for others beliefs... after all this is what open discussion is all about.
No.
Whom wants to worship the biggest scape goat in the world and for what the fear that you may burn for eternity. and that rapture is as real as UFO's. People have been killed in the name of faith and that's all it is. Its Hoggwash I'll keep my faith in science. Jesus got his a** kicked for talking s*** to the roman's point blank.
There's no evidence supporting any of what you say, and there are plenty of people with evidence on their side who would argue against the validity of your claims. There is not much evidence that Jesus ever existed, though I am willing to accept that there could have been such a person. There is also little evidence that he was crucified or that such a crucifiction would have taken place in the manner (and for the reasons) described in the Bible. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of gods (much less the very specifically-defined Judeo-Christian god). As such there is no reason to assume that there is a "way to God," that there is only one such way, or what that way might be if it did exist. Likewise for the assertion that Jesus was anything other than human. The theological debates about the trinity, whether or not this god could have a son, and whether this constitutes polytheism are circular and absurd. Why do the sins "of mankind" need absolving, and why are ALL HUMANS individually held responsible for the actions of SOME HUMANS (including the long-dead ones)? Why does this loving god require the cruel, torturous sacrifice of a living, thinking, feeling human life before he could grant forgiveness? How does one repent "in the name of [someone else]"? Shouldn't you just admit your wrongdoing and stop acting like a jerk?
The very concept of "sin" has no objective meaning. Even if one commits atrociously unethical acts against other people, groveling to an invisible mythological entity does absolutely nothing to repair the damages or to teach one a feasible lesson about where they went wrong and how to prevent such lapses of morality in the future. "Repenting" in the Christian sense usually consists of a mindless emotional outpouring of remorse accompanied by a "New Years Resolution"-style decision to do better. The resolution is softed by the Christian concepts (Protestant, maybe? there are similar Catholic ideas) that people are all sinners, that all sins are equal (except one), and that people can be forgiven at any time by simply apologizing to God. This leaves a lot of leeway for not changing one's behavior patterns. While this type of repentence doesn't necessarily exclude the rational evaluation of one's ethical reasoning, it in no way requires it. As such, it is a failure in promoting ethical living.
I had the idea of repenting before God driven into me at a very young age (and held onto it until I was about 22 or 23). The brain is surprisingly successful at latching onto ideas that are heavily reinforced while it is still developing. Now 27, I still suffer from a major guilt complex that often cripples me from taking action in my life. Combined with the mood-swings of bipolar disorder, it is a constant struggle to stop hating myself and assuming responsibility for everything that goes wrong around me (whether or not it is my fault). I will not pretend that I do not resent this damaging indocrination, although I am resigned to the fact that my past cannot be erased or undone and that all I can do is put forth the effort to better myself and take control of my own life.
In short, I see absolutely no reason or truth in your statements. I'd love to hear any defense or explanations though.
Cody: It is not for me to convict your spirit. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is only for me to tell you. The people who gave you these labels were wrong. If it were right, then you would not be able to speak kindly and take things to heart. There is a peace that surpasses all understanding, and that is my wish for you. What do you have to be guilty of?
@bleachers. I don't know how extensively you researched your information, which was apparently spoonfed from Zeitgeist. I would encourage you to dig a little deeper. If you would like to read a book that, in my mind, thoroughly debunks your allegations, please let me know.
really, zeitgeist... please.. let me know when you actually have an argument..
really? what book and who wrote these books you speak of im guessing it was a christian, and that all their arguments rely on their faith not actual proof or evidence.
I'm still waiting for your mystery super book of truth..
JoeyMack: I thought I read it somewhere before, (Zeitgeist). They have the prophets, and they have the Law. If that isn't enough to convince them, then even a dead man, returning from hell, will not convince them either, as Abraham said.
Neither do the Dead Sea scrolls, or the Holy Land, or the words & parables of Jesus, which people who couldn't read have repeated throughout the centuries, or the miracles which occur every day, or the prophesy unfolding all around us, & of course not the Bible, the inspired Word of God. Isn't that convenient?
They always fasten their safety belts, they don't want to break the law of man because it's real important.
It's well documented that Jesus existed...
Is it? We have no first-hand evidence of him. The gospels are (despite their titles which were much later additions) annonymous, and written in the third person. St Paul never met the living Jesus. Besides that, the EARLIEST account we have of Jesus was written by Josephus Flavius, who was born around 36AD, and so cannot be an eye-witness. Odd for someone who performed miracles to thousands...
the bible doesn't count champ.. the only thing you know about J.C. is what the bible pitches and presents. Alexander the Great's life is well documented, Aristotle's life is well documented, J.C.? ONE heavily edited "holy" book that is full of contradictions.
I will not voice my opinion on the existence of Jesus.
Cleopatra existed over 2000 years ago and there is scarce evidence yet it is still held as fact by some, yet their attitude to Jesus is quite the opposite.
Actually, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Cleopatra in the historical record. On the other hand, the existence of Jesus is a matter of faith, not history.
Actually, there is historical evidence of Jesus as a person. The question becomes what weight bits and pieces of historical evidence hold for you versus how much you would need to rely on faith apart from this evidence.
@Joeymack
What are the evidence that Jesus as a person existed?
I am curious to find out.
az
That depends on what you mean by the existence of Jesus. There is not a lot of evidence that "Jesus the man" existed, but there is enough. If you mean "Jesus the miracle worker," that is another matter.
maybe historic evidence of a man named jesus, but none that he was god or had magical powers thats all hear say. but their is historic evidence that cleopatra was really a queen. so there is a big difference.
Sorry, not buying it.
Entertaining, maybe informative. But that title shows such a lack of inspiration. How about something like "Cleo, the real deal" ?
it is not for sale . just a believeable story with correct backups. take it or leave it. i just took it. nicely done