[Football] A or B?

[kuzushi]

It seems that’s ALL you want to talk about. Across two threads.

The only time I've ever discussed religion is when someone else brings it up in some way. If people don't want to talk about it, don't bring it up. If they do bring it up, it's a bit weird if I'm not then allowed to respond, isn't it?

 

[zefarelly]

Has this guy been hacked by Swanny or what?

Swanny must have eaten 5 pizzas after toking through 1/4 oz of weapons grade skunk in a few hours. He's never been this caned before

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yep, I was right. You've proven it! It seems that that is literally all you are capable of saying

On a point of pedantry, I actually gave you three extra words. So I’m capable of more than just saying bizarre.

 

[kuzushi]

Swanny must have eaten 5 pizzas after toking through 1/4 oz of weapons grade skunk in a few hours. He's never been this caned before

Who or what is Swanny?

 

[kuzushi]

On a point of pedantry, I actually gave you three extra words. So I’m capable of more than just saying bizarre.

Yes, that's true.
But you didn't elaborate in any way on what you find bizarre, or explain why.
Is it because I believe there is a creator, or that I was saying that Jesus is an actual historical figure (which he was, that's simply a fact, so not bizarre at all).
Or is it because we must not discuss such things on a football forum? Because other people keep referring to Jesus, not I, I just respond, which seems only fair.

 

[kuzushi]

This is my latest masterpiece

 

[Devout Maupedian]

Who or what is Swanny?

Just some bang average Swedish-Jewish alleged nazi.

I know how to watch football though, and your idea is utterly shite.

1. People want fast pace in the games. The number one way to make something appear faster than it is is through cutting more. Its the case in action movies and its the case in sports. There was a German study (some 20 years ago) comparing the number of camera cuts and the pace of the game, revealing that while football had become much faster, a significant portion of the perception of it as faster actually came from the higher amount of cuts. This is difficult to achieve if someone needs 24/7 information on where the goal posts are (hint: they haven't moved in about 150 years).

2. Its a total mindfuck for the human brain. We read from left to right (and in some places from right to left). We normally scan surrondings horizontally, not vertically. If we want to portray movement in eg movies, it is usually done with the character moving from left to right (forward movement) or right to left (backward movement). When we bend those rules, we get confused.

3. Measurement of distance becomes very difficult from your angle. In the NFL they loved the "behind the QB" angle for a short while, but people were annoyed that you really couldn't see how many "yards" they were running.

4. All your examples are goals. In a football game there's 2-3 goals on average. Goals are usually scored within 10 seconds of winning the ball and yeah in those cases, maybe your angle is good... but could you record us 10 minutes of intricate midfield battle from the same angle and tell us it is actually watchable?

5. Most stadiums have taller stands on the long sides than on the short sides. I'd say your angle works on - tops - 10% of the professional football stadiums worldwide. In most places, the goal will be obstructing it (meaning you can watch your goal posts but the rest of us can't see the game itself, which is what a lot of people like to watch). The PL would probably be the only league where all 20 teams can get "your angle" done in a somewhat reasonable way. This creates a pretty weird scenario where the PL would be the only league in the world showing football from this particular angle, and you'll struggle to convince FIFA/UEFA/PL/Sky Sports/viewers that this uniqueness brings anything other than confusion. People want to be familiar with what they watch and this would affect the global viewership of the PL.

We could go on. Or actually not since I just circumvented my ban just to pull you out of your psychosis.

(UTA)

 

[kuzushi]

Just some bang average Swedish-Jewish alleged nazi.

I see

I know how to watch football though, and your idea is utterly shite.
1. People want fast pace in the games. The number one way to make something appear faster than it is is through cutting more. Its the case in action movies and its the case in sports. There was a German study (some 20 years ago) comparing the number of camera cuts and the pace of the game, revealing that while football had become much faster, a significant portion of the perception of it as faster actually came from the higher amount of cuts. This is difficult to achieve if someone needs 24/7 information on where the goal posts are (hint: they haven't moved in about 150 years).

Ooh, swearing, wow.

About camera cuts, that is one of the main things people have been complaining about on this thread and the other one. A lot of people hate all the cuts the directors are using. So do I.

Also, it's not just the goalposts, it's everything. I don't think you appreciate how bad the current angle is. I didn't at first, but once you start to realise, it becomes more and more annoying. Saturday's final in Istanbul was an example. You can't see who's on the receiving end of long balls until ball reaches them, you couldn't see who was about to score the winning goal when the ball bounced loose in the penalty area until he was within a couple of yards of hitting it.

By watching it from that angle, you are effectively censoring yourself from a lot of the action. As is evident from the examples I've shown, you are missing huge amounts of information by watching a rectangle cross-ways instead of length-ways. Take a photo of any open space. The field of vision left and right is limited by the edge of the photo, the view ahead takes you all the way to the horizon. It's not just about the goalposts, which as you correctly point out are static, it's about the goalkeeper and other players who do move. They move around all over the place. Personally I don't want an artificially created "fast pace." I just want to see the game as it actually is, and as much of what's going on (players making runs, who's marking whom, where the goalkeeper, goals, pitch-markings etc) as possible. Surely you agree that it's good to see as much as possible. You wouldn't want to go to the stadium and be told you have to watch the game with blinkers on, but that's what's happening when you watch it on TV, simply because of the angle. Change the angle and you'd solve this problem. With the cross-field view, you are automatically instantly blocking out huge amounts of the field of play. With the lengthwise view, you can capture the whole field if you want, including both penalty areas at once, while still being able to zoom in whenever you want to. You simply can't do this from side on.

2. Its a total mindfuck for the human brain. We read from left to right (and in some places from right to left). We normally scan surrondings horizontally, not vertically. If we want to portray movement in eg movies, it is usually done with the character moving from left to right (forward movement) or right to left (backward movement). When we bend those rules, we get confused.

I think you're exaggerating. It can't be that much of a mindfck as you are trying to make out. The Chinese and Mongolians read from top to bottom, and as others have pointed out, soccer games on PCs and games consoles such as... I can't remember which ones, FIFA maybe (not into computer games)... but many them do it top to bottom, so it can't be that confusing or else they wouldn't do it like that. I think this is in the category of something you get used to after a little while. To be honest I think most of the objections are simply based on resistance to change. I'd really like to see a proper in-depth study done into it.

3. Measurement of distance becomes very difficult from your angle. In the NFL they loved the "behind the QB" angle for a short while, but people were annoyed that you really couldn't see how many "yards" they were running.

The whole premise of NFL is about yards gained. Soccer is different. Soccer is about making runs off the ball and passing, and it's nice to be able to see those runs being made and know who the passes are going to, and whether the recipients are being marked or not, and how tightly etc etc..

4. All your examples are goals. In a football game there's 2-3 goals on average. Goals are usually scored within 10 seconds of winning the ball and yeah in those cases, maybe your angle is good... but could you record us 10 minutes of intricate midfield battle from the same angle and tell us it is actually watchable?

The examples are goals because that's pretty much all that's on offer from this angle, in the form of replays. This is the thing, it would be nice if they gave it a try, record some games like that to see what it was like in practice. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Whenever I've seen clips of football from that angle, I've always found it incredibly refreshing to be able to see so much of what is going on, and that's why I've started to find it so frustrating to have to watch football from the limited traditional angle. If people were given the chance to watch a few games like that, then we'd have a better idea of what it was like and whether it was as good or bad as people imagine it would be (depending on where they stand on the matter).

5. Most stadiums have taller stands on the long sides than on the short sides. (you can call the "short sides" ends) I'd say your angle works on - tops - 10% of the professional football stadiums worldwide. In most places, the goal will be obstructing it (meaning you can watch your goal posts but the rest of us can't see the game itself, which is what a lot of people like to watch).

I'm not sure, but are you saying that the goal would block the camera's view of the pitch? I mean, I don't know, but I don't think the camera would have to be mega high to be able to get a decent view, and if necessary they could mount a platform for it. It's not an insurmountable challenge.

The PL would probably be the only league where all 20 teams can get "your angle" done in a somewhat reasonable way. This creates a pretty weird scenario where the PL would be the only league in the world showing football from this particular angle, and you'll struggle to convince FIFA/UEFA/PL/Sky Sports/viewers that this uniqueness brings anything other than confusion. People want to be familiar with what they watch and this would affect the global viewership of the PL.

Fair point about people wanting familiarity.

We could go on. Or actually not since I just circumvented my ban just to pull you out of your psychosis.

(UTA)

Talking about psychosis because I have a point of view apparently not shared by many on this forum, and I believe in it? Er, okay..
It's a discussion about a game. At the end of the day, it's just a game.

There are literally three differences between when you view the game lengthwise or crosswise:
1. You see more when you view it lengthwise. More of the pitch and hence more of what's going on. LENGTHWISE WINS
2. The angle of the edges of the pitch is more distorted when you view it crosswise. LENGTHWISE WINS
3. The goals are located at the ends, not the sides of the pitch, so it's clearer viewed lengthwise whether a shot has gone in or not. LENGTHWISE WINS
4. The direction of play is from left to right versus top to bottom. MATTER OF PERSONAL TASTE, probably something you get used to and people would quickly adjust to.

No one can dispute that I am correct that you see much more of the pitch looking at it lengthwise than you do cross-ways. You know, like, it's a rectangle with two sides and two ends. That's it really. The players appear just as large whichever way you look at them (some people were saying they'd look like stick-men... er, nope, they're the same as when you look at it cross-ways).

I think that's all it boils down to: I advocate the lengthwise view because you can see so much more, and why wouldn't you want to do that? Others prefer the traditional view because they are used to it (they like to see play go from left to right). I am sure that people would quickly adjust to watching play from the lengthwise view, and in the future would find it incredible that people resisted changing from an angle that so severely restricted their view of what was going on.

 

[Happy Exile]

but the experts are pretty much unanimous: Jesus lived and founded Christianity.

Without wishing to be a horrendous pedant I don't think many experts say Jesus founded Christianity, that's something his followers did.

In a very Mourinho way "christ" means "the chosen one" and Jesus, according to all accounts, had a bit more humility than Jose. I don't dispute there's historical evidence he existed as a man but there's zero evidence as far as I know that he wanted to start a new religion, more initiate a reset of Judaism by challenging the exceptionalism of it's leaders and power structures.

Some of his followers did however want to start a new religion. The question is, why? If we're taking historical evidence for the existence of Jesus we also have to accept the evidence is flawed and at times contradictory (even in the "official accounts" of the New Testament) because people are people and have agendas and mixed memories and bias, especially confirmation bias.

So in the same way we can choose whether to believe Boris Johnson's account of something or Sue Gray's on the balance of probability, vested interests and so on, there's not a huge amount to go on for the resurrection, for example. I know this is where faith comes in but having been raised through a Christian school system I've seen first hand how faith is used to justify, rationalise, control and forgive absolutely anything it's expedient to, so to me the whole thing is more like a convenient psychosis. That's not to say there aren't a great many lovely and very well meaning religious people, I'm sure the majority are, just like the majority of non-religious people. It's human nature that makes people "good" not faith, or lack of it.

Anyway, camera angles. I prefer the side view though I also like the whizzy overhead camera on a string behind view for replays and penalties.

 

[kuzushi]

Without wishing to be a horrendous pedant I don't think many experts say Jesus founded Christianity, that's something his followers did.

In a very Mourinho way "christ" means "the chosen one" and Jesus, according to all accounts, had a bit more humility than Jose. I don't dispute there's historical evidence he existed as a man but there's zero evidence as far as I know that he wanted to start a new religion, more initiate a reset of Judaism by challenging the exceptionalism of it's leaders and power structures.

Some of his followers did however want to start a new religion. The question is, why? If we're taking historical evidence for the existence of Jesus we also have to accept the evidence is flawed and at times contradictory (even in the "official accounts" of the New Testament) because people are people and have agendas and mixed memories and bias, especially confirmation bias.

Before anyone starts objecting, I'm answering the points raised.
It's clear that Jesus founded Christianity.
Let me ask you a question: When did Christians begin celebrating the Last Supper, as depicted by Leonardo Da Vinci?

The Apostle Paul wrote a lot of the New Testament, but neither he nor anyone else other than Jesus founded Christianity. The most central sacrament of Christianity is remembering the last supper, or holy communion, the bread and wine representing the body and blood of Jesus. It summarises the whole Christian message. Holy Communion is the crux of the Christian message. This comes directly from Jesus. It's not something that evolved or developed over time. Jesus gave instructions for believers to do this the evening before he was crucified. If you don't get this, you don't get anything about Jesus and his mission. This is from Mark's gospel. I chose Mark because he is associated with Peter, not Paul, but the same thing is found in Luke's gospel, too (Luke was associated with Paul).

12 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, ‘Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?’
13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, ‘Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, “The Teacher asks: where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?” 15 He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.’
16 The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
17 When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18 While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, ‘Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me – one who is eating with me.’
19 They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, ‘Surely you don’t mean me?’
20 ‘It is one of the Twelve,’ he replied, ‘one who dips bread into the bowl with me. 21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.’
22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take it; this is my body.’
23 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 ‘This is my blood of the[c] covenant, which is poured out for many,’ he said to them. 25 ‘Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.’

"This is my bllood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." Jesus knew he was instituting a new covenant.
Even agnostic sceptic and New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman would agree with me (I know this because I've watched his videos). Jesus founded Christianity. The most you can say, as Ehrman does, is that Paul founded a specific interpretation of Christianity whereby gentiles do not need to convert to Judaism before coming Christians.

So in the same way we can choose whether to believe Boris Johnson's account of something or Sue Gray's on the balance of probability, vested interests and so on, there's not a huge amount to go on for the resurrection, for example.

There's enough.
Firstly, there's the question of the body. It's a fact of history that Jesus was crucified and buried, and his followers went into hiding. Shortly after this, his followers began loudly proclaiming throughout Jerusalem that he had risen from the dead. Well, that should be easy to debunk, just point to his dead body. The problem was that the body had disappeared. Where had the body gone, and what had produced the sudden great change in his followers, courageously announcing the resurrection in the very city where Jesus had only recently been murdered? In the book of Acts we read

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: ‘Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17 ‘“In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21 And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[c]
22 ‘Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25 David said about him:
‘“I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,
27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.”[e]
29 ‘Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
‘“The Lord said to my Lord:
‘Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.’”[f]
36 ‘Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.’
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’
38 Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call.’
40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.’ 41 Those who accepted his message were baptised, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Something that might be worth your looking into if you haven't heard of it is the VP-8 image analyzer used by NASA, and the story of Peter Schumacher, it's inventor, and what he does now and why.

Are you familiar with the book "Who moved the stone?" by Frank Morison? That's also food for thought.

I know this is where faith comes in but having been raised through a Christian school system I've seen first hand how faith is used to justify, rationalise, control and forgive absolutely anything it's expedient to, so to me the whole thing is more like a convenient psychosis. That's not to say there aren't a great many lovely and very well meaning religious people, I'm sure the majority are, just like the majority of non-religious people. It's human nature that makes people "good" not faith, or lack of it.

Anyway, camera angles. I prefer the side view though I also like the whizzy overhead camera on a string behind view for replays and penalties.

 

[Happy Exile]

Before anyone starts objecting, I'm answering the points raised.
It's clear that Jesus founded Christianity.

Oh my. I've snipped out what you wrote just to save people's scrolling with massive quotes. I genuinely appreciate your reply though. Thank you for taking the time.

SO. Jesus didn't found Christianity. He was the originator of the practices of Christianity, but he didn't found it as a religion. As a movement/sect/religion it was founded after the reputed resurrection. You've cited historians who say he existed. You'll also find many/most say he died around 29-34 CE and Christianity didn't start until the middle of that century, some years later.

We won't agree on any of it so it's a pointless debate - personally, if I'm reading something nearly 2000 years old, where there are 4 stories, none of them written by eye-witnesses and they all vary in some key details, then I'll take them with a large pillar of salt and look at motivations for why they exist and the historical and cultural context...I think I'm looking at the areas they are inconsistent and to me that's insurmountable, you're looking at the areas they corroborate each other and seeing that as more important. It doesn't make either of us any better or more right, but I won't be convinced by your position any more than you will by mine!

For what it's worth, in the historical and political context and in the context of his other acts Jesus's new covenant can be interpreted in multiple ways. To those who heard it that statement would have been a direct challenge to the established order and hierarchy and an act of political revolution as much as spiritual revolution. He was directly challenging what was at that time the established view of the covenant with God being based on vengeful actions and requiring the control of all-powerful religious leaders. No wonder those in power were scared of him. Some choose to see that as as spiritual instruction too...I don't...

 

[Goldstone1976]

Just some bang average Swedish-Jewish alleged nazi.

I know how to watch football though, and your idea is utterly shite.

1. People want fast pace in the games. The number one way to make something appear faster than it is is through cutting more. Its the case in action movies and its the case in sports. There was a German study (some 20 years ago) comparing the number of camera cuts and the pace of the game, revealing that while football had become much faster, a significant portion of the perception of it as faster actually came from the higher amount of cuts. This is difficult to achieve if someone needs 24/7 information on where the goal posts are (hint: they haven't moved in about 150 years).

2. Its a total mindfuck for the human brain. We read from left to right (and in some places from right to left). We normally scan surrondings horizontally, not vertically. If we want to portray movement in eg movies, it is usually done with the character moving from left to right (forward movement) or right to left (backward movement). When we bend those rules, we get confused.

3. Measurement of distance becomes very difficult from your angle. In the NFL they loved the "behind the QB" angle for a short while, but people were annoyed that you really couldn't see how many "yards" they were running.

4. All your examples are goals. In a football game there's 2-3 goals on average. Goals are usually scored within 10 seconds of winning the ball and yeah in those cases, maybe your angle is good... but could you record us 10 minutes of intricate midfield battle from the same angle and tell us it is actually watchable?

5. Most stadiums have taller stands on the long sides than on the short sides. I'd say your angle works on - tops - 10% of the professional football stadiums worldwide. In most places, the goal will be obstructing it (meaning you can watch your goal posts but the rest of us can't see the game itself, which is what a lot of people like to watch). The PL would probably be the only league where all 20 teams can get "your angle" done in a somewhat reasonable way. This creates a pretty weird scenario where the PL would be the only league in the world showing football from this particular angle, and you'll struggle to convince FIFA/UEFA/PL/Sky Sports/viewers that this uniqueness brings anything other than confusion. People want to be familiar with what they watch and this would affect the global viewership of the PL.

We could go on. Or actually not since I just circumvented my ban just to pull you out of your psychosis.

(UTA)

Btw:

1. You didn’t ‘circumvent’ your ban; mod towers knew it was you and gave you the benefit of the doubt.

2. A tip to the wise: if a banned ex-member reappears under a different guise and plays nicely, modctowers continues to give them the benefit of the doubt. If, however, they come back railing against the reason they got banned, admitting they are indeed the banned ex-member, and continuing much like before they got banned - we’re rather less tolerant.

Banned.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Btw:

1. You didn’t ‘circumvent’ your ban; mod towers knew it was you and gave you the benefit of the doubt.

2. A tip to the wise: if a banned ex-member reappears under a different guise and plays nicely, modctowers continues to give them the benefit of the doubt. If, however, they come back railing against the reason they got banned, admitting they are indeed the banned ex-member, and continuing much like before they got banned - we’re rather less tolerant.

Banned.

Bit of a shame really if he's been re-banned. Clearly loves it here. And as football forums go it clearly engages his Big Brain, unlike, say, The Shed End or whatever. Swanny can be quite nice when he plays nicely. Quite smart also. And when nurse forcibly removes his tinfoil helmet, it forces him to focus on his specialist subject: football. Far flakier, far more cowardly posters post on here on a daily basis, scared of the shadow of their own opinion. Mind you, this sudden influx of supposedly global newbies, who invariably, oddly, have a far greater command of the English language than most of us natives, is a bit odd. And boy do they just love to write essays as opposed to, y'know, messages, on a messageboard. What gives there then? They can't all be Swanny shirley?

 

[kuzushi]

Oh my. I've snipped out what you wrote just to save people's scrolling with massive quotes. I genuinely appreciate your reply though. Thank you for taking the time.

That's fine.
You didn't explicitly answer my question ("When did Christians begin celebrating the Last Supper, as depicted by Leonardo Da Vinci?"), but I assume from what you write that that's because you accept the point I'm making, namely that Jesus knew he was going to die, and that it was for the remission of sins.

SO. Jesus didn't found Christianity. He was the originator of the practices of Christianity, but he didn't found it as a religion. As a movement/sect/religion it was founded after the reputed resurrection. You've cited historians who say he existed. You'll also find many/most say he died around 29-34 CE and Christianity didn't start until the middle of that century, some years later.

So there was, from the mid-30's AD onwards, a community of believers in Jerusalem who believed in Jesus as the Messiah and the third person of the Trinity, and who believed that he had risen from the dead, and were breaking bread and drinking wine in commemoration of his death on the cross for the remission of sins. What's that if it's not Christianity? Now after that there were various different expressions of the faith I guess you could say, but Christianity started with Jesus (even if it wasn't called Christianity for a while - apparently they referred to it as 'the Way', and Christians were known as 'followers of the Way'). As I said, even renowned sceptic Bart Ehrman admits that.

We won't agree on any of it so it's a pointless debate - personally, if I'm reading something nearly 2000 years old, where there are 4 stories, none of them written by eye-witnesses and they all vary in some key details, then I'll take them with a large pillar of salt and look at motivations for why they exist and the historical and cultural context...I think I'm looking at the areas they are inconsistent and to me that's insurmountable, you're looking at the areas they corroborate each other and seeing that as more important. It doesn't make either of us any better or more right, but I won't be convinced by your position any more than you will by mine!

I don't think it's pointless if either or both of us learn something from it, and it stimulates us to further research.
Also, you don't know that you won't be convinced by my position. Perhaps you don't really know what my position is. You might think you do, but maybe you don't.
About the gospels, there is debate as to who wrote them. Mark was a follower of Peter, so very close to the source, and Luke was a follower of Paul. Matthew is believed to have been a tax collector and John is believed to have been the disciple whom Jesus loved. This is an area where I'd like to know more, but I do know that there is not unanimity either way about whether Matthew and John were eye-witnesses or not.

The fact is that there were many more than the 4 canonical gospels written, but they were the four that were accepted as kosher. The discrepancies are not a great problem for me. The fact that they exist and have been left testify to the fact that the early church did not amend those parts. Obviously they would have been aware of them, but they simply left them as they were, even though they could have edited them to make them more internally consistent.

For what it's worth, in the historical and political context and in the context of his other acts Jesus's new covenant can be interpreted in multiple ways. To those who heard it that statement would have been a direct challenge to the established order and hierarchy and an act of political revolution as much as spiritual revolution.

He was directly challenging what was at that time the established view of the covenant with God being based on vengeful actions and requiring the control of all-powerful religious
leaders. No wonder those in power were scared of him. Some choose to see that as as spiritual instruction too...I don't...

Yes, they certainly saw him as a threat, and wanted him out of the way. They believed that by killing him, it would put paid to the movement he had started, and they would probably have been right but for the resurrection. So there was a political aspect to it, but the charge on which he was convicted was blasphemy when he referred to Daniel's prophecy about the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God and coming with the clouds of heaven.

But Jesus remained silent and made no reply. Again the high priest questioned Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”
“I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
At this, the high priest tore his clothes and declared, “Why do we need any more witnesses?…"

The fact is that is the resurrection hadn't happened, there would be no Christianity today because the disciples were terrified and in hiding having seen their leader crucified, and fearing they would be next, and we would probably have never heard of Jesus. His disciples would have all melted away. Why didn't they all just melt away? A few weeks before, when Jesus was arrested, Peter had denied even knowing Jesus at all. Then all of a sudden, he's standing up preaching boldly in public that Jesus had come back from the dead, and not just Peter but all the others with the exception of Judas Iscariot, without a fear in the world.

 

[Happy Exile]

That's fine.
You didn't explicitly answer my question ("When did Christians begin celebrating the Last Supper, as depicted by Leonardo Da Vinci?"), but I assume from what you write that that's because you accept the point I'm making, namely that Jesus knew he was going to die, and that it was for the remission of sins.

Well...the first written evidence of the ceremony of eating bread and drinking wine in Jesus's name was nearly 30 years after his death. Some of those historians we both like so much say it wasn't a religious celebration though (just a commemoration) until 120 years after his death. Some of them also say it could have simply been Jesus asking for himself to be remembered with a meal to be shared in his name with those less fortunate, far from uncommon in first century Judea (that cultural context again) and what I think early Christians were told off (by Paul?) for not doing when they break bread and drink wine. Breaking bread was symbolic of this charity for early Christians - think of the other times Jesus breaks bread before the last supper and why.

So no, I don't see it as being about remission of sins in a literal sense though I can appreciate that interpretation. I think it's a political revolutionary making an argument for a fairer society and acts of compassion as a path to heaven.

By 110CE the church was already split and having meltdowns on what the breaking of bread at the last supper meant and how it should be recognised as part of worship (this is when arguments for transubstantiation began too). I don't have the will or the energy to go into 2nd century Christian philosophy here but I suspect you're familiar with it.

I'm sure you're also familiar with how the earliest written Bible sources come from this time too, and there are respected scholars who think the whole last supper scene was created as we have it now to interpret how Paul described eucharistic practice, not from any original source, perhaps with a layer of whatever the dominant philosophy was at that moment over the top. Let alone debates from, I think, Luke's interpretation that leave it open to being part of Passover and not a distinct commemorative event in it's own right.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Which out of A and B is "Jesus founded the Christian religion", or "Jesus didn't found the Christian religion"?

 

[Guinness Boy]

 

[thejackal]

I think Jesus would have voted for A

 

[kuzushi]

Which out of A and B is "Jesus founded the Christian religion", or "Jesus didn't found the Christian religion"?

I don't know, but the correct answer is "Jesus founded the Christian religion."

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Btw:

1. You didn’t ‘circumvent’ your ban; mod towers knew it was you and gave you the benefit of the doubt.

2. A tip to the wise: if a banned ex-member reappears under a different guise and plays nicely, modctowers continues to give them the benefit of the doubt. If, however, they come back railing against the reason they got banned, admitting they are indeed the banned ex-member, and continuing much like before they got banned - we’re rather less tolerant.

Banned.

Swansman rejoining to post on this thread and then immediately getting banned reminds me a lot of that lad in the Shinning who spends the whole film coming to save them only to get axed in the chest within a minute of arriving.
Oh, spoilers.