'Basic Instinct' Director Paul Verhoeven: Jesus Was Son of Mary and Roman Rapist

Sure. He knows exactly what he's doing, and that's why he's doing it. He's not stupid.

Over the years, Verhoeven, who is Catholic and holds a doctorate in mathematics and physics from the University of Leiden, was a regular attendee of the Jesus Seminar, which was co-founded by the late religion scholar Robert W. Funk. The seminar called into question miracles and statements attributed to Jesus.

It's kinda silly to claim to be an expert authority on something that no one in present day has experienced and can't be proved.

Like the Big Bang?

I figure he wants to do a remake of "The last Temptation of Christ" (Was that Scorcese?).
Only this time it would be Mary-centric, instead of Magdalene-centric. Quite a spin. Let's
get a draft together for my agent...I mean imagine...sex with the VIRGIN Mother. Ha. Money in the bank!

Like the Big Bang?

This about the other Big Bang.

But that's the thing Dennis. There is no historical or scriptural evidence for Verhoeven's claim. He could just as easily claim that Jesus was a crossdresser.

ytmd: Oh yes there is. See my other posts on the subject.

He could just as easily claim that Jesus was a crossdresser.

And have exactly the same chance of being right on the money as everyone else. Fact is, there's no proof of any of this stuff. There's no proof that Jesus even existed.

That's right. There's no evidence that Jesus existed outside of the Bible. So where does Verhoeven get his Roman rapist theory from if it's not in the Bible?

Beats me. Guess I'll have to see the film if I want to know that.

There's no evidence that Jesus existed outside of the Bible.

Not true.

You can find much more information about this historian than just on wikipedia where this is taken from; you can read his Jewish War (c.74) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94)

You gloss over the "disputed" part. It's widely accepted that the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery.

He could just as easily claim that Jesus was a crossdresser.

I only have movies and a couple of Da Vinci paintings to base this on but fashions looked pretty unisex in those days. Hard to tell who was a cross dresser and who wasn't.

Perry O,

You think that's funny?...

I have a very good fwend in wome named Biggus Dickus...do you know what his wife's name is?

Incontinentia?

Incontinetia..buttocks!

Like the Big Bang?
This about the other Big Bang.

Only Mary can confirm that the Bang in her case was Big...

This is about as far from Immaculate Conception as possible.

No one claims a hypothesis is true unless it's proven to be.

I'm not a product of any Divinity school, but I do know the virgin birth does not equal
the Immaculate Conception. The latter refers to when Mary was visited by an Angel and told, Im paraphrasing here, that she was forgiven her Original Sin (Hail Mary, the Lord is with thee). Jesus could not be born of a tainted womb. The virgin thing was a medieval construct.

Obviously Jews, Hindus, Muslims and others do not believe that Jesus is divine, or in the virgin birth, (or else they'd be Christians) so why must this provoke an argument? This is not really anything new, unless you have been sheltered from non-Christian sources all your life.

Actually Muslims do believe in the virgin birth. With that said, this is something new. It's one thing to profess disbelief, it's another to concoct some crackpot theory about Jesus' real father.

The virgin thing was a medieval construct.

That's inaccurate. It's in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, written in the first century. Christians from the beginning were claiming Jesus as the fullfilment of Isaiah 7.14 "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel" I'm aware of the "virgin" vs. "young woman" contraversy, but understand that for Christians, not immediately but certainly by the third century, the septuagent, which has "virgin" was taken as authoritative.

The new Testamtament was translated many times, particularly in Medieval times, when
people walked around afraid Satan himself would be around the corner. But these are just semantics. Point is, anyone with an opinion seems to have his own version of Scripture.

The word "parthenos" in Greek can mean "virgin" in the sense of a woman who has not had sexual intercourse, or it can simply mean "young girl." In ancient cultures, the two were usually the same for all practical purposes, because girls were married off as soon as they reached physical maturity. Obviously, if a teenager had the bad luck to be raped, something that Roman soldiers undoubtedly did often and with impunity to vulnerable women in the provinces under their control, then one sense of the word would apply to her but not the other.

in the writings of some pagan Roman historians. The latter claim that Jesus was the illegitimate child of a Roman centurion.

Sue,

What else would you expect the Roman pagans to claim? (if this story is true)

Can we expect the murderers of Christ who defiled him physically, not to defile Him in recording the history of their defilement?

I don't think so.

a nun who studied the Greek text of the Annunciation story pointed out that the word usually translated as "humble" actually means "defiled," and that Mary is rejoicing that the pregnancy that she had thought was such a disaster for her will in fact result in the birth of the Messiah.

Sue,

The Annunciation is given in Luke Chapter 1 verses 26-38. Here's the text of it from the New International Version English translation of the Bible:

26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you." 29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." 34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" 35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God." 38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

I also looked at these passages in 5 other English translations of the Bible, both old and contemporary and in none did I find the word "humble" in the Annunciation verses..

There is nothing in the context of the Annunciation passages at all in Luke which indicates

"that Mary is rejoicing that the pregnancy that she had thought was such a disaster for her will in fact result in the birth of the Messiah.

Now pay attention: Verse 34: ""How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

indicates Mary is not even aware of being pregnant, so how can she possibly, in your words:

be rejoicing that the pregnancy that she had thought was such a disaster for her will in fact result in the birth of the Messiah.

I don't know where this so called nun came up with this so called translation error, but it's not in the Biblical text as she supposedly described it. Since the NIV is the most scholarly English translation ever produced from the best available Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts, and was translated by teams of Biblical scholars from colleges, universities, and seminaries of the English speaking countries of the US, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. I have no doubt they got it right.

A later passage, in which the priests of the temple confront Jesus, includes the line "We are not born of fornication." The Greek wording uses the pronoun for "we," which isn't necessary with the first person plural verb unless you are using it for emphasis, as in "We, as opposed to YOU . . . "

I don't have time to check this one out right now (do you happen to have which book, chapter, and verse is being referred to?) , but I don't have any doubt its as bogus, or taken out as context as the nun story. I'm not saying you're trying to perpetrate a fraud here Sue, but you need to check your sources for accuracy Professor. I get a little pissed about these "mistranslation" claims 99.1% of which are completely bogus, and the other 0.9% due to contextual misunderstanding.

Agreed. It's not airtight, but it does exist.

Shaun,

Sorry but that so called

does not exist at all in the Bible.

Shaun,

Ok I'll admit I don't have a clue as to what Roman historians said.

Hmmm?... "The Theological Implication and Resonance of 'Showgirls' in 21st C.E. Cyber-forums". This sounds like a solid start for an M.A. thesis in comp lit, comp, rel. studies or Amer. cult...

Jazzman: Okay, I will admit I was quoting a secondary source on that one, and haven't read the woman's scholarship myself. Biblical archaeology is not my field. So I make no claims to expertise. It's possible she was working with one of the gnostic gospels. Somewhere in this office I do have a mini-copy of the Gideon Bible New Testament, and I will dig it out and check it as soon as possible.

Can I write a book that speculates that Jesus had four fingers on his left hand?

I'm pretty sure Paul Verhoeven's book will feature gratuitous violence and nudity and one scene of a unisex shower/locker room.

Why is he cited as "basic instinct" director rather than the director of Robocop (PBUH).

Hope this never makes to film then. Mel Gibson can sue his ass for infringement...

The Chewbacca Defense!

That was my impression as well. Donahue just looks like an asshat and actually gives more credibility to Verhoeven with his remarks.

The Chewbacca Defense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

Maybe this guy should write romance novels, in that case. He doesn't even have to write the plot, really. He can just use the standard formula.

Not bad! most movies I see today are plug-n-play anyway. It's pretty rare to see something that required thought; sort of like having a nice steak dinner when all you've been getting is Mcdnlds.

nice steak dinner when all you've been getting is Mcdnlds.

It's more like 'upgrading' from McD to BK, same crap but tastes different!

(snicker snicker)

Thura and Cecil, you're both using the argumentum ad hominem here. The character of the person making an argument doesn't affect the validity of the argument one way or the other. If a you could prove that Galileo was a drug-addicted pedophile and that the priest who forced him to recant was a saint, you'd still have to concede that Galileo was right about the earth revolving around the sun, and the Pope was wrong.

Shhhh, Babel - you're going to irritate the anti-Muslim crowd by pointing out that Christians supported stoning people to death, too.

No katrix, they don't.

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?' They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.' And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, sir.' And Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.'

John 8:3-11

I didn't say that Jesus supported stoning people to death. I said that Christians did. Deuteronomy states that damsels who get raped in the city (as opposed to in a field, because obviously, only a whore would be in the city without crying or some such crap), along with the rapist, should be stoned to death. And that's just one reference.

katrix,

There were no Christians until the Cruxifiction and Ascension of Jesus occured.

Stoning was sanctioned under Jewish Law, which Deutoronomy is a part of (also know as The Torah), but is not only a Jewish tradition. Muslims practiced it too. In fact there are some Muslim sects that still practice it. it still occurs in Saudi Arabia I believe, and a teen age girl, was stoned to death by a Muslim sect in Iraq last year, for supposedly violating one of their laws.

You won't find any support for stoning mentioned in the New Testament.