It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So, do the hard-atheists out there think I've ruined their favorite books and movies? Do you still appreciate the works for what they are? And what do you think about the archetype of the Christ and its role on our society?
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
nope, because you're not tracing the archetype to its initial inception. the figure of "jesus christ" is something that was predated by other messianic cults. there was a cult of dionysus that had the idea of a chosen one that sacraficed himself to save us all. in terms of the jungian archetypes this would be a martyr figure. there are many examples of these figures that predate, the epic hero that makes the ultimate sacrafice in order to save the world, people, etc. another good one is horus (well, one of the many deities to share this name).
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you haven't ruined any of my favorite stories because you fail to realize how much the original messianic figure that is lost to us because of horrible record keeping has influenced your own religion.
Originally posted by queenannie38
I think the archetype in question would be better understood in even a more generic fashion...because after all, a rose is a rose is a rose, right?
How about:
'the noble sacrificial hero for the underdogs'
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
I would like to chime in on this one....
... I do understand, however the nature of the question, and what the point of Jesus does for the culture is provide hope. Consider this, with alot of the titles of the movies you have mentioned, it was either a message of hope or to believe in yourself, as you have the strength within...
In The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the fifth book of the series, Aslan tells the children that although they must return to their own world, they can find him there also (Hooper 123). Aslan says, "There I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there" (Hooper 123). Some of Lewis' readers wonder what the significance of this statement is and begin to search for Aslan here on earth. Hila, an eleven year old girl from the United States asked Lewis what Aslan's name is in this world (Dorsett 31-32). His response was this:
As to Aslan's other name, well I want you to guess. Has there never been anyone in this world who (1.) Arrived at the same time as Father Christmas. (2.) Said he was the son of the great Emperor. (3.) gave himself up for someone else's fault to be jeered at and killed by wicked people. (4.) Came to life again. (5.) Is sometimes spoken of as a Lamb.... Don't you really know His name in this world. Think it over and let me know your answer! (Dorsett 32)
When Lewis' readers find Aslan in the real world, they will find out that his true name is Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Do not get me wrong, I am not against christianity or Jesus, but I do not believe that the ideas or the the interpertations of the bible applies to modern day.
Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
I realize that you believe that Jesus was based on Dionysus, but I find it extremely hard to believe that the Wachowski brothers meant for Neo to be an allegory for Dionysus and not Jesus.
What do you mean by "horrible record keeping"?? If the record keeping was so "horrible", then how come the Gospels mirror each other so closely when they were written in separate places, at separate times, by separate people?
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
no, i never said they meant to base him on dionysus, i actually implied he was based on the archetypal martyr figure.
secondly, my answer is PLAGERISM
and it's not like they were all that accurate to historical events
Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
I realize that there is something called the archetypal martyr figure, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the archetypal Christ figure.
As I've already pointed out, these writers and directors meant for their characters specifically to be allegories for Jesus Christ, not just any martyr figure.
I highly doubt that.
According to historical events, there was a Herod Antipas,
Pontius Pilate,
and all of the geographical locations mentioned in New Testament were correct.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
but jesus fits the archetype point for point, so transitive property
archetypal martyr = jesus
character based on jesus = character based on archetypal martyr
Grapes = Fruit
Watermelon = Fruit
Therefore Grape = Watermelon!
it's incredibly unlikely that each of the authors didn't have a copy of the other gospels when they were writing their own (well, the ones that existed as none of them were written simulaneously). and you also implied that they were written by individuals when it seems more likely that they were written in a collaborative effort (changes in styles and dialects within individual copies of early texts point this out)
except for the swine that have to travel across half of judae to run into any body of water after having demons placed in them...
and all the other examples, but you stated that ALL of them were right, so refuting 1 ought to be enough to prove you wrong.
Gerasenes or Gadarenes or Gergesa has many different translations, but they're the same location. Here's a map of the relative area.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you just say something
they AREN'T the same place
gergesa is a city
Some are of opinion that Gergasa was the country of the ancient Girga#es; but it is more probable the Gergesenes was introduced by Origen upon mere conjecture; as before him most copies seem to have read Gadarenes, agreeable to the Parallel Passages and the ancient Syriac version. Gadara, says Josephus, was the metropolis of Peraea, or the region beyond Jordan; and he also observes that it was sixty furlongs, or about eight miles from Tiberias. It is therefore rightly placed opposite Tiberias, at the southeast end of the lake. Pliny says it was called Hippodion, was one of the cities of Decapolis, and had the river Hieromax, or Jarmouk, flowing before it.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
except for the swine that have to travel across half of judae to run into any body of water after having demons placed in them...
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and all the other examples, but you stated that ALL of them were right, so refuting 1 ought to be enough to prove you wrong.
Originally posted by WiseSheep
(To Madnessinmysoul) Why should I even waste my time with you? If it were just you, I wouldn't.
You left me hanging on the census argument off in another thread. So what's the point? When I prove you wrong here, you'll just shut up and wait for another chance to spout a well thought out lie somewhere else.
Originally posted by queenannie38
How about:
'the noble sacrificial hero for the underdogs'
Originally posted by marg6043
Biblical Jesus was actually the hero of the new testament, heroes are good the no always survived and the more they sacrifice for the good of others the more it sells.