Last Crusade = Raiders of the lost Ark

Chewbacca Jones said:
It's called being open minded. You should try it sometime.

Now would be a good time for you to show it! opps, sorry for interrupting:

Chewbacca Jones said:
I like to admit that I don't know everything, and that I can be wrong. Cole could be a little less aggressive (and maybe me too),

Hey that worked out well, and didn't seem contrived at all. But really, that's why I ask questions...to try to understand your point of view. I don't think I can read tone into text flawlessly so I do ask questions. It's yours to take them as YOU will.

Chewbacca Jones said:
but let's face it; you are the one being nasty and making sure nothing productive transpires.

Really? Nasty? This is hardly nasty. I'm asking questions. Forwarding the dialogue, that some of your responses don't make sense or are poorly expressed, in my opinion, doesn't make my challenging you nasty. I merely step up to the line in the sand and dont (usually) tend to cross lines unprovoked. Maybe you're just don't understand me and you're rushing to judgement. If you propose something I read that comes off as outrageous to me I will challenge you to support your claims. Don't expect me to accept what you say as though you were Jesus himself!

Chewbacca Jones said:
Mostly, you just seem to be looking for ways to disgree and be difficult.
Mostly I'm looking for you to explain yourself SATISFACTORALLY! Yes to MY satisfaction. You've engaged in this debate just as vehemently, it's a two way street sweetheart. You're 11 posts in and you think you understand my motives?

Chewbacca Jones said:
As for Jesus not being an element of Christianity - by your arguement; Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. Christianity didn't actually come together until after his death. Therefor, he was co-opted.
Please show me where I've said that once. These are YOUR words, and your faulty logic. I have not yet addressed this assinine application of logic! (Now THATs being rude...but still not nasty!). Try to respond to the content of my posts and not your twisted,whacked out perception of them. (that might be nasty.)
 
Last edited:
Cole said:
Rocket's one of those people who gets his kicks out of internet fights. Let him be.

Post 53, thank you confucious.

Still ignoring interesting questions?

...making the distinction between ownership and adoption.
...what power does the Grail have?
...was [the Ark] mentioned in the New Testiment?

Discusions, debates, fights...it's a two way street, and your posts can be condecending too, no?
 
Last edited:

mattzilla2010

New member
Well Rocket Surgeon, perhaps I can take a stab at answering your questions, since I'm not part of this wild raging argument thing that seems to be going on... :)

1) ownership vs. adoption: I agree with you 100% that the Ark originated from and "belongs to" the Jewish faith, and that the Ark as a religious symbol was much later adopted by Christianity. But where my opinion differs is that I believe the Ark "belongs to" Christianity just as much. Yes, the Ark was actually around long before Christians were, and was the property of the ancient Hebrews, so in that sense the Ark itself (the physical object) is/was owned by the Jews. But purely as a religious symbol, I don't see how any one religion can "own" it exclusively. I mean, the Ark isn't copyrighted is it? If two religions want to use the same symbol, then it can belong to both of them equally.

So I don't see it as Jews owning the Ark with Christians just borrowing it.

And, I apologize if that wasn't quite what you were asking. I'll admit I didn't read all your previous posts very carefully :eek:

2) Well, judging by the end of Last Crusade, I would say that the Grail extends the life of whoever drinks from it and also heals wounds/illnesses.

3) The only instance I know of is this: "Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm." - Revelation 11:19

But it's possible there could be more.

And as a last note to everyone here - just be friends! Discussion is good, but arguments and insults aren't very productive. All you need is love... :hat:
 

Chewbacca Jones

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Don't expect me to accept what you say as though you were Jesus himself!
Don't expect anyone to accept your word in that way, either.

You're 11 posts in and you think you understand my motives?
Just like you, I can only go on what your write here. I have trouble finding substance in most of what you wrote. Challenge, yes. But reasons for it? No. You want me to explain myself to your satisfaction, but you seem to avoid explaining yourself in the process.

I do note that a short while ago you laid out a few ideas, but any challenge to those is met with words that, tone aside, are not very civil.

Please show me where I've said that once. These are YOUR words, and your faulty logic. I have not yet addressed this assinine application of logic! (Now THATs being rude...but still not nasty!). Try to respond to the content of my posts and not your twisted,whacked out perception of them. (that might be nasty.)
Yes, that's nasty and uncalled for. If you look at what I was saying IN CONTEXT with your views on why the Ark is not a Christian artifact (rather than me quoting every last word you've said about it so far), I am applying the idea of the Ark pre-dating the faith to the historical fact that Jesus predated Christianity as a religion.

To answer your hard questions myself;
1 - Ownership vs. adoption is a dangerous area to be in when talking Christianity. The faith has drawn so much from other religions and cultures that it has become difficult at times to figure out what really started with the Christians and what didn't. However, regardless of whether you consider something owned or adopted by a religion, it's still an element of it. The Old Testament, while originated by the Jews, was adopted into the Christian faith. Wether or not you consider the stories of the Bible to be literal truth or not, the Old Testament itself is part of the history of Christianity, much the way my ancestors of old are part of my own history, even though they died long before I was born. And if any of my family members were adopted, or even just called family, they are still part of my family's history.
2 - The movie claims immortality (or at least healing) to be a power of the Grail, as do many stories within and outside of Christian teachings.
3 - The Ark in the New Testament; Well, I think Mattzilla covered that one. But I argue that the Old Testament is no more valid than the New. So it shouldn't matter. Jesus' teaching were based on what came before, and Christianity is based on Jesus' teachings. Thus both Jesus and the Ark are, among other things, part of Christian history and faith.

Now, instead of raging against me or those who are with me on this, and instead of expecting me to continue explaining and making points, why don't you CIVILLY either concede my points or counter them with your own. And I don't mean reject. I mean counter. Because the last one who can make a legitimate point wins a debate, not the last one to point and say "you're wrong." (and let me take away the temptation to say that you never used the words "you're wrong." I was simplifying for demonstrative effect.)
 

Chewbacca Jones

New member
Cole said:
Rocket's one of those people who gets his kicks out of internet fights. Let him be.

I choose not to leave him be. I don't know Rocket, but I've known many others who have something legitimate to say but have trouble doing it without causing some mud to fly.

I'm hoping to turn this around to something productive and interesting. If he has some good points to make, I want to know what they are.
 

Dayne

New member
Chewbacca Jones said:
As for Jesus not being an element of Christianity - by your arguement; Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. Christianity didn't actually come together until after his death. Therefor, he was co-opted.

Exactly.

(Everything mattzilla2010 just said)

Exactly. These are the points I was trying to make, though presented in a much more elegant fashion. I applaud both your writing abilities. (y)

Ahhhh discussions... gotta love em. :D
 
mattzilla2010 said:
Well Rocket Surgeon, perhaps I can take a stab at answering your questions, since I'm not part of this wild raging argument thing that seems to be going on... :)

1) ownership vs. adoption: I agree with you 100% that the Ark originated from and "belongs to" the Jewish faith, and that the Ark as a religious symbol was much later adopted by Christianity. But where my opinion differs is that I believe the Ark "belongs to" Christianity just as much. Yes, the Ark was actually around long before Christians were, and was the property of the ancient Hebrews, so in that sense the Ark itself (the physical object) is/was owned by the Jews. But purely as a religious symbol, I don't see how any one religion can "own" it exclusively. I mean, the Ark isn't copyrighted is it? If two religions want to use the same symbol, then it can belong to both of them equally.
So I don't see it as Jews owning the Ark with Christians just borrowing it.

And, I apologize if that wasn't quite what you were asking. I'll admit I didn't read all your previous posts very carefully :eek:

No problem, don't apologize...you're post was exceedingly polite!
The Ark itself is a Jewish artifact which has been adopted or co-oped by Catholic Tradition, a SYMBOL of the NEW LAW. St Thomas Aquinas and his followers, drew parallels between this Jewish relic and the Christ, the Holy Eucharist even a manner the Ark might be very well regarded as a mystical figure of the Blessed Virgin, called by the Church the "Ark of the Covenant".

A symbol that was adopted and redefined. However the relic itself is Jewish.

mattzilla2010 said:
2) Well, judging by the end of Last Crusade, I would say that the Grail extends the life of whoever drinks from it and also heals wounds/illnesses.
Have we been talking about the point of view of the films? If so the Ark as presented by the film is decidedly NOT Christian in context. The beards imbued the Grail with mystical powers. There is no tradition of The Holy Grail where it posseses any power save fiction including the film, poems and literature hundreds of years hence...(I am speaking of the relic not the plot device).

mattzilla2010 said:
3) The only instance I know of is this: "Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm." - Revelation 11:19
My earlier point may shed light on the turn of the phrase "Ark of the Covenant" which has also been called Ark of the Testimony, Ark of the Testament, the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, the Ark of God, AND the Ark of the Lord.

mattzilla2010 said:
And as a last note to everyone here - just be friends! Discussion is good, but arguments and insults aren't very productive. All you need is love... :hat:

With all things old and new there is a learning curve. We should all re-examine our motives.

Cheers.:hat:
 
Last edited:
Chewbacca Jones said:
I am applying the idea of the Ark pre-dating the faith to the historical fact that Jesus predated Christianity as a religion.
Historical fact?
The church was formed when Jesus said:
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


Check out Matthew 16:18-19



Chewbacca Jones said:
Just like you, I can only go on what your write here. I have trouble finding substance in most of what you wrote. Challenge, yes. But reasons for it? No. You want me to explain myself to your satisfaction, but you seem to avoid explaining yourself in the process.

I see the number of posts and understand I can't know you so naturally I challenge...to find out if you're full of sh!t or not, (my method is obviously not flawless,but entertaining...to me at least).



Chewbacca Jones said:
Now, instead of raging against me or those who are with me on this, and instead of expecting me to continue explaining and making points, why don't you CIVILLY either concede my points or counter them with your own. And I don't mean reject. I mean counter. Because the last one who can make a legitimate point wins a debate, not the last one to point and say "you're wrong." (and let me take away the temptation to say that you never used the words "you're wrong." I was simplifying for demonstrative effect.)

Cheers...you've stuck around and made your assertions, but I think we differ on some basics which I've "countered" above. I'll start with that and lets see if we can find common ground.

...and yeah, I never said you were wrong, I did challenge with questions though.
 
Last edited:

Chewbacca Jones

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Historical fact?
The church was formed when Jesus said:
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Check out Matthew 16:18-19

NOW we're getting somewhere!

OK, I admit that I don't know my Bible very well, so I can't throw quotes. Still, I assert that, in terms of what is written within, Biblical passages can not be relied on to trace history so finely. Between translations and all the tinkering the Church has done over the centuries, we can't be sure of the intent of that statement.
Even setting aside those problems, the words "my church" (if translated correctly) could easily be the same as those spoken by any minister, priest, etc. when referring to the building or community that he tends. But looking at what happened around and following the time of Jesus' death, it is really after that something specifically Christian forms as a religion.

On the other hand, one could argue that Christianity (though not in name) was born when Jesus' followers started to see him as being... shall we say "a cut above" your average rabbi, much the way the Baptist faith is viewed.

However, this still ties the Christian and Jewish faith so closely together that it's difficult to separate in historical manner. At least as I see it.

Now, looking at your responses to Mattzilla;
My main issue is that I believe the manner in which the Ark became an element of Christianity is not relevant in determining if it is a Christian relic. But I fully agree that it was first and foremost a relic of the Jewish faith. Thus, I would (and apparently many others would) consider it both. On that, I think all we can do is agree to disagree.

What I remain curious about is this; What makes you say that the Ark in the movie is decidedly not Christian in context? I thought they were deliberately noncommittal on that point. What's your basis?
 

Little Indy

New member
Been lurking along this post thought I'd chime in here. Col. Deitrich asks Belloq if it was necessary to perform the Jewish ritual of opening the Ark. Previously when Indy is commisioned to obtain the Ark he talks about the Hebrews carrying the Ark before them in battle. A few hints to link it to Judeism (sp).
 
Chewbacca Jones said:
My main issue is that I believe the manner in which the Ark became an element of Christianity is not relevant in determining if it is a Christian relic.

I have other questions and responses but first...please clarify THAT one.
 
Little Indy said:
Been lurking along this post thought I'd chime in here. Col. Deitrich asks Belloq if it was necessary to perform the Jewish ritual of opening the Ark. Previously when Indy is commisioned to obtain the Ark he talks about the Hebrews carrying the Ark before them in battle. A few hints to link it to Judeism (sp).

Thank you...

Chewbacca Jones said:
What I remain curious about is this; What makes you say that the Ark in the movie is decidedly not Christian in context? I thought they were deliberately noncommittal on that point. What's your basis?

please put forward ANY example in Raiders that references Christianity.

Off the top of my head the only non-judaic reference is Sallah's it's not of this earth.
 

mattzilla2010

New member
A symbol that was adopted and redefined. However the relic itself is Jewish.

Yes, I quite agree.

Have we been talking about the point of view of the films? If so the Ark as presented by the film is decidedly NOT Christian in context. The beards imbued the Grail with mystical powers. There is no tradition of The Holy Grail where it posseses any power save fiction including the film, poems and literature hundreds of years hence...(I am speaking of the relic not the plot device).

Ah, whoops. I thought it seemed a bit strange that you were asking about the Grail's power, since it's clearly shown in the film. :p

Yeah, as far as I know the actual relic (if it exists) isn't supposed to have any kind of holy powers or anything.
 

Cole

New member
So if we link this back to the Indiana Jones.......what is the counter-argument being made? That the Ark is strictly a Jewish artifact, therefore making it a completely different type of artifact than the Cup of Christ which is a Christian artifact?

I don't agree with that at all.......both artifacts derive their powers from God and I don't think it's "just" the Jewish people who believe in the Ark.

That's all I'm sayin'.
 
Cole said:
So if we link this back to the Indiana Jones.......what is the counter-argument being made? That the Ark is strictly a Jewish artifact, therefore making it a completely different type of artifact than the Cup of Christ which is a Christian artifact?I don't agree with that at all.......both artifacts derive their powers from God and I don't think it's "just" the Jewish people who believe in the Ark.That's all I'm sayin'.
Is there a counter argument? Or have I just challenged you to support your opinions.

I feel I have to do this:
Cole said:
In many ways, the Cup of Christ is a fairly routine McGuffin after the Ark.
Rocket Surgeon said:
How is the Holy Grail routine?
Cole said:
After the Ark.......they're both two of the biggest religous/Christian artifacts. Fairly retread.
Rocket Surgeon said:
Hmmm...what's your definition of routine?You're calling the Ark a Christian artifact? ...a religious artifact to be sure, but retread? You're really pretty vauge. Care to elaborate?
Cole said:
No, I don't. I alrady laid it out. You disagree with me, then fine.
Rocket Surgeon said:
It's not that I don't agree with you as much as I'm curious where you're coming from...and if you have something worthwhile to say.But I guess I know now.
Cole said:
It seems Rocket Surgeon would rather be a dick to me then discuss the issue at hand.
Looking it over seems you're being a dick to me and I was being MORE than CIVIL. (To refute the walking carpet going through withdrawl).
Cole said:
So if we link this back to the Indiana Jones.......what is the counter-argument being made? That the Ark is strictly a Jewish artifact, therefore making it a completely different type of artifact than the Cup of Christ which is a Christian artifact?
No, this has been about you calling it a retread, and why.
Cole said:
I don't agree with that at all.......both artifacts derive their powers from God and I don't think it's "just" the Jewish people who believe in the Ark.
Yeah, but the films made no allusions to the Ark and Christianity and The Grail and Judaism. They kept them segregated.(Not to get too nitpicky but the relics themselves have no power...God didn't "make them magical" It's always been Gods power and it's because the "bad guys" were so presumptuous of "its" power they succumbed to "The Wrath of God" not "The Wrath of The Ark".
Cole said:
That's all I'm sayin'.

Now, yes...then, no.

...and try not to be such a dick.
 
Last edited:

JP Jones

New member
I think about 99% of people who watched the 2 movies could care less whether the ark is jewish or the grail is christian. The point is they're used for the same purpose, to show the power of God. The argument I have is that we've seen something like the grail before. I gives you the idea that they just wanted to copy raiders instead of making a fresh unique movie like the other 3. So really there is no reason to decide what religon each artifact is.
 

Cole

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Looking it over seems you're being a dick to me and I was being MORE than CIVIL. (To refute the walking carpet going through withdrawl). No, this has been about you calling it a retread, and why. Yeah, but the films made no allusions to the Ark and Christianity and The Grail and Judaism. They kept them segregated.(Not to get too nitpicky but the relics themselves have no power...God didn't "make them magical" It's always been Gods power and it's because the "bad guys" were so presumptuous of "its" power they succumbed to "The Wrath of God" not "The Wrath of The Ark".

Now, yes...then, no.

...and try not to be such a dick.
I don't understand what you're trying to say...........the Ark and the Cup of Christ segregated? Of course, I never said they were the same. I"m saying they are similar.

I said why I thought it was fairly retread and you were more interested in talking about how I didn't back up what I say, rather than putting forth your own thoughts.
 

Cole

New member
mr.kotcs said:
I think about 99% of people who watched the 2 movies could care less whether the ark is jewish or the grail is christian. The point is they're used for the same purpose, to show the power of God. The argument I have is that we've seen something like the grail before. I gives you the idea that they just wanted to copy raiders instead of making a fresh unique movie like the other 3. So really there is no reason to decide what religon each artifact is.
I would still say that bringing in Indy's dad and how he's incorporated into the story still makes it fresh.

One of the interviews that George Lucas did, where he was talking about how hard it is to come up with these McGuffins for the films - he himself even said something along the lines that what made 'Last Crusade' great was bringing in the father.
 
Top