The Passion of the Christ - Page 4

Check out Psalm 22. From what I've read, whoever wrote the Gospels borrowed liberally from the Old Testament in order to give Jesus a kind of credibility that would come from linking him to the past - in that case, David. But that also brings into serious question whether Jesus actually said that, or it was just added in for good measure.

[edit]Wow, definitely check out Psalm 22. Here's more:


Isn't there a story in the Passions that the Roman guards cast lots for his clothing or something?

Shhhh! You're gonna jinx it!

1. Just a light-hearted jab at my lack of links as well. I'll try to nail down the stuff I was reading on the weekend.


2. With regard to Kickaha's questions, there is a truly stunning scene in the opening of the film. I won't spoil it for you, but it does deal with the "genesis" of the whole reason he had to die.

Christian theology holds that Man was created without sin, and God could fellowship with mankind on Earth and did frequently. When Man sinned, we broke that connection.

We haven't figured out all the natural laws of the universe, yet alone the Spiritual ones. But the Bible states that the penalty for sinning against God is death. All descendants of Adam have since been born with the Curse of Sin hanging over their heads.

God, being Love personified, didn't want to leave His creation in this sorry state. Since the whole mess started with the sin of one perfect man, the death of one perfect man would "redeem" mankind from the Curse. But all children of Adam were tainted with sin, and thus, imperfect.

We all get our sinful nature from our fathers who in turn got it from Adam. The Bible says that the sins of the Father pass on to the children. Thus, if you have no earthly father, you have no sinful nature.

Thus Jesus' death is viewed as payment for our sins. His rising from the dead doesn't negate that payment. Even in our laws, if one person gets the death penalty for someone else crime, the other person can't be charged for it. And if we execute someone and he is confirmed to be dead and then comes back to life, we can't execute him again.

Sorry Kickaha, for the long and probably boring post, but I couldn't figure out how to explain my understanding of this any other way.

ehem

The only formal Jewish leadership in Judea at the time, was the one appointed by Rome, and under Roman control and supervision.
It is preposterous to claim that the appointed puppet-show from a subjugated backwater would coerce the mighty empire to anything.


At the battle of Pons Milvius, in 312, Constantine is said to have seen a Christian sign in the sky, with the inscription in hoc Signo vinces (that's where the acronym IHS, common on various old documents. comes from), the sign is supposed to have been not a cross, but a chrism, composed of the Greek letters X (χ ) and P (ρ ).
In 313, Constantine enacts the edict of Milan, which legalises the Christian religion (Religio licita) throughout his domains which is approved by his associate licinius (who is removed from imperial competition soon after, but let's not digress).
Constantine favourises the Church, but in exchange demands that it resolves its various doctrianire disputes, at the oecumenical conciles.
The Church had been organising itself on the ipierial model even while underground, so it goes in a direction already taken.
But Constantine himself did not convert to Chritsanity until his agony.

After his death, Christianity was making inroads, but not without resistence. For a few years it seemed Hellenic paganism was back with a vengeance, during the short rule of Emperor Julian the Apostate. But after Julian dies while battling the Persians, Christianity is again, on the way up.
But only in 379, did Emperor Theodosius enact the edict named after him, making Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. He was also the last ruler of a united empire. After his death, the empire was formally divided in two empires, one of Occident (capital: Rome) and one of Orient (capital: Constantinople), each with its ownb separate insitutions.
By 476, the last western emperor, Romulus Augustulues is deposed by the Skyre chieftain Odoacer, who dissolves the mepires and sends the western imperial insigniae to Constantinople, to the eastern emperor Zeno. The eastern empire was to last till 1453, it's usually referred to as Byzantine.

Gradually, the old ways are repressed. When Alaric besieges Rome, the authorities exceptionally allow overt sacrifices the old gods, but that was not to last.
In 529 an edict of eastern emperor Justinian (who lead a temporary imperial recovery of some western domains, like Italy, North Africa, and a southern part of Spain) closes for good the philosophical schools of Athens, the last organised bastion of the old teachings.


If any document called gospel was found among those scrolls it would have been widely publicised. Feel free to look for a Gospel of Thomas in the scroll book repository.
While some scholars, such as Michael Wise and Robert Eisenmann, claim the community which possessed the scrolls was the actual Nazarenes, but most of the scholarly learned peers are presently far from convinced.

I am also an Orthodox Christian.

Odoacer and many of the invading Germanic tribes were Christians, but they were of a 'heretical' sort . . . they followed the teaching of Arian and were Arianists . . . (not Aryan) It wasn't until Clovis, the Mervingian King of the Franks, that any of the Germanic tribes that ruled the formerly Western Roman territorries turned Catholic . . . He converted in 490something

You make it sound like the Roman Church was not in power during the years after 476 . . . when in fact it still maintained itself . . . and, it was an on again off again relationship with the Eastern Empire, the official break in terms of religion does not happen till much later (1054 IIRC)
They still quarrelled over doctrine and power but still tried to maintain the notion of a single Church . . .even when Eastern Emperor Leo (IIRC) began Iconoclasm . . .

This part is interesting. In that "Gospel Truth" book I've been reading, it says that one of the most agreed-upon theories of the academics is that the virgin birth was an add-on later, probably to convince gentiles familiar with Greek gods of Jesus's deity.

1. There was no virgin birth in Mark, the earliest gospel. You'd think it would be in there considering how amazing it is.
2. Virgin births were a strongly Greek and Egyptian (Horus) tradition. And Mithras was a virgin birth, born on Dec. 25th.
3. It was not until whoever wrote Matthew was telling the story to Greeks that the virgin birth story appeared, presumably to convince them of Jesus's divinity in a way that they would understand.
4. Matthew linked Jesus's virgin birth to a passage from Isaiah "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and call him Immanuel," in order to make Jesus the fulfillment of a prophecy. Aside from the name difference, it turns out that the passage from Isaiah that Matthew used was based on a mistranslation. The word in the original didn't mean "virgin" it just meant "girl." They had mistranslated it into the Greek that whoever wrote Matthew read. In addition, Isaiah wasn't even talking about a Messiah in that passage at all.
5. Even the Bethlehem angle is screwed up, because Jesus was from Nazareth, not Bethlehem, even though an Old Testament prophecy said the Messiah would come from Bethlehem. So they had Mary and Joseph come in for a census (Luke) or to avoid a Moses-like passover purging of children by Herod (Matthew), neither of which make any sense to historians of the period.

Apparently, even the Catholic scholars no longer try to argue that the virgin birth wasn't added on later.


Actually, in the state of Texas they can.

But Gobson claims he is Catholic . . . he means a sort of orthodox (as in extreme)version of Catholicism
Orthodox (Eastern and Russian) are an entirely different Liturgy . . . though they pine for the re-uniting and etc

And yet most Christians think Jesus *is* God... and son of God... and then there's that whole Holy Ghost thing...

And...

Matthew 22:59-64:
59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. 61 And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre. 62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, 63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. 64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

Mark 8:27-31:
27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? 28 And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets. 29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. 30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. 31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

He knew. I haven't read the Bible in detail in probably 10 years, but I remembered *this*... and an online search engine confirmed it.

Yea, I am considered Russian Orthodox, my parents grew up Catholic but they converted sometime before I was born. I wish I was a Catholic, our services are like 2 hours long +. It sucks sometimes..haha im going to hell.

I, of course, would guess that that is after . . .years after even


Well, if it had to happen then no-one is to blame.
if it is fullfilling a preordained fate that he had to be humiliated, and turned in and all that then Judas is a necessary part of the plan.
In fact, without Judas it would not have happened.
So, we could just as easily decide that Judas was really part of the plan of redemption . . . so much so, that since it would not have happened without him then he also should be seen as a sacred part of the sacred plan.
Why not then venerate Judas as part of the redemption plan?
Why not then venerate anybody that took part in the story as they all were part of what had to be and therefore did what needed to happen and therefor played a sacred part in a sacred plan?
Why not think of them as saints?
why not worship Judas?

and what about that sacred of all sacred for Christians "free will"?
If it had to happen, and it had to happen as it did, then averybody was merely playing a pre-ordained part in a prewritten sacred plan.
What kind of "free-will" is that?

Isn't the NTestament then the best arguement against "Free Will"?

I gaurantee you you are not.

From a loving God, I still find this a bit... daft.


Personal problem #2: no sins of the mother? Oh, right, females didn't count for much... Call it a modern bias, but this still sticks in my craw. "Women are evil! But only a woman can carry a pure sinfree bloodline!" Um... eh?


I appreciate it, actually, I hope you don't take offense at my observations. I was raised fundamentalist until the age of 9, when I went to my folks with a highly annotated Bible and Concordance (I used to have fun cross-translating between English, Greek and Hebrew) and said "Okay, explain this to me..." and I started pointing out the inconsistencies and conflicts that I had found and thought about. They couldn't. I went to the church elders. They couldn't. I told my family I didn't want to go anymore... and thankfully, my father recognized that until I came to an understanding of those conflicts, further attendance would only be met with resistance and resentment. I'm still looking for those answers. Frankly, the farther back I go in the writings (Gospel of Thomas? Fabulous.) the more answers I find - after about 100AD, the writings just start to get corrupted. By 400AD, they're... well... a mess. And that's what we have now that most people deal with. It's sad. There are kernels of beauty in Christianity, but 2000 years of infighting, politics, and human treachery and fallibility have create a chimera that is so open to interpretation that any act of evil can be justified. I just can't buy into that current modern religion.

Jesus knew he was going to be resurrected. (See earlier post.) I attribute the 'forsaken' quote (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34) to a very human moment in reaction to the physical pain... which may or may not be considered a trait of a perfect man, depending on your beliefs of what makes us human.

As for the movie from Mel, I only saw the QT trailer, in which one can hear Latin with the old ecclesiatical pronounciation (ce pronounced che etc.), the kind that could not have been heard in the 1st century.
Moreover, even correct 1st century classical Latin, or even colloquial Latin, was in very little use in the eastern parts of the empire, safe some private conversation between Romans.

These were the languages in daily use in Judea at the time:
Aramaic; used by all excepts the Greeks and the Romans.
Hebrew; declining but still in use by Jews in parallel with Aramaic. It will fall in disuse some century later after the devastation following the Bar-Coziba rebellion.
Popular Greek or Koïnê; in use by the Greeks, Romans, and the Hellenised local upper crust. Many other locals also managed some conversational Greek (think present-day bad airport English).
Classical Greek; the formal language used by Greeks, Romans, and the upper crust.

Of course, Mr. Gibson is not writing some boring scholarly paper where some hsitorical accuracy is required, and since he's free to believe that later ecclesiastical Latin was spoken at the time, he is free to make a film in accordance with that and other of his beliefs.

But that does not mean any reasonable person should deem it some benign film dart, pretending to ignore its cultural background.

Since the Middle-Ages, less technologically advanced Passion plays were common throughout Christendom, with their usual portrayal of the Jews as the god-killers, evildoers, and otherwise unfriendly creatures. The perofrmance of such plays would often be a prelude to a massacre in the ghetto.

Of course these are not the Middle-Ages, we are living a much more technically capable society, and hopefully a more enlightened one as well, but then so was Western society believed to be circa 1900.
If any lesson can learnt from recent history, is that the luminous wonderland of lightbulbs, motorcars, vaccines, and notebook computers, can turn very quickly into a nightmare, if given the proper encouragement.

Back when I was young, in the ninteen-sixties, the Catholic church convened the Second Vatican council, which abandoned the old accusation of deicide, and adopted the use of spoken languages in Church rituals and ceremonies, instead of the Church Latin. Some groups rejected those decisions, a few going as far as deeming the Pope illegitimate and the Holy See empty; I gather the precise term for them is Sedevacantists.
It seems Mr. Gibson is member of such a group, whuch might explain his predilection for Latin.

Awesome, I am saved.

Well I can't gaurantee it, but I pretty much believe that you can count on it for two reasons:

One; it does not exist

two; if Christ had come then you are redeemed and therefore you can go ahead and not believe in him again and live life . . . because you would be redeemed duh!

one of my favorite come-backs to evengelists saying "Jesus died for your sins" is:
"well then, let's not let him have died for nothing!"

Boy, that's funny. Real keeper there. \

Hell yes, it is!

Any opportunity to puncture the pomposity and hypocrisy of those who would peddle spirituality like fast food should be taken, with gusto.

Actually, it reveals a prideful lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Amazing how "open minded" people, who demand tolerance of everything, see it fit to mock and hate Christians.

Between 400 and 460, various Germanic warlords took over the the western empire. As you correctly noted, when they forsook polythesim it was often for Arianism. Their attitude toward the Roman Church varied from chief to chief. Ostrogoth ruler Theodoric the of Amali, was rather favourable to the Church as well as to Roman culture (I recommend a visit the basilics of San Vitale and SanÂApollinare-in-Classe, in Ravenna, the last seat of western imperial government as well Theodoric's).

The Frankish warlord Clovis (that's how we call him now, his name was probably something like ÂKhlodovekhÂ, the name which later became ÂLudwigÂ, ÂLouisÂ, ÂLuigiÂ, ÂLuÃ*sÂ, ÂLluis ÂLjudevitÂ, etc.; actually, Clovis is counted as Louis I in the list of the kings of France), managed to take over the Northen parts of Gaul: the Gallia Lugdunensis and the Gallia Belgica, as well as large swaths of the Germania; that's roughly today's Benelux, the Rhine-Ruhr, Franconia, Pfalz areas, and northern France but without Brittany (controlled by Britsh Celts fleeing the invading Saxons) or Burgondy (where the Burgonds ruled).
He was fighting the Alamanni then, and after having defeated them at Tolbiac (today Zülpich, not far from Cologne), Clovis, the descentdent of Merovekh (and so believed by the Franks to be of divine extraction) converted to Roman Christianity, the religion of most of his subjects. Then there was that episode of the vase of Soissons, which they used to teach in French-language schools.
For the first time since the fall of the West, the church could find support backed by a credible military. That was the beginning a long-term partnership between the Franks and Church, culminating with the coronation of a Frankish king, Karl, as emperor of Rome; he's the one commonly called Charlemagne (from ÂCarolus MagnusÂ) in 800.


While the dissolution of the imperial power with whiuch it was associated has weakened it, the Church of Rome was far from powerless, its long-term policy was then to find new political support, as far the attempting to re-establish a western empire, first with Charlemagne, and later with Othon I, and the rest of the ÂHoly Roman EmpireÂ.
In parallel the Church sought to instaure its own political entity, the Ecclesiastical state (whose justification was based on a hoax: the Donatio Constantini), a state which existed in the Latium under one form or another (with a few interruptions) till 1870.
So between 400 and 800, the political clout of the Church was perhaps diminished, but far from insignificant.


I wrote about the division in two empires, in 395, not about the schism of Orient and Occident of 1054.

Hey, they mock and hate me first. *shrug*

Sorry if you're offended, I think it's perfect.

(And 'prideful'? How much hubris does it take to not only assume that they hold the only key to truth, but to know what God's mind is concerning my soul? I mean come on.)

I'm not sure what your source is but from what i have read, Clovis converted, probably under the influence of his wife, and his subjects were neither Catholic nor Arians . . . until he converted with 3000 of his subjects also converting. Legend has it that he converted after appealing to God before a battle on a whim . . and then winning the battle decisively

Charlemagne (Charles Martel, Charles teh 1) was not a Merovingian but was the second (or third . . . I can't remember right off hand) King of the Carrolingian line (Pippin=1st) He gets the blame for both Catholicizing and unifying Europe through a very smart reorganization of the Church structure with regardsto how it ministered and how it maintained its different parishes and educated its parishioners, he demanded a standard and put in place an elaborate network which included monesteries and forced them to abide by the standard which he worked out with the Church . . . this standard was one of education and scholarship . . . he re-introduced the notion of culture and letters to a dark era by encouraging translation and reading and demanded that clergy not be mavericks spouting whatever they wanted . . they had to push the Pope's line, he also brought the Church out of the cities and created Rural parishes that also abided by the standard and were networked into the standard . . . this standard went beyond what we think of as National Boundaries and began the first steps to unifying a concept of 'Europe' that was not merely Classical . . . it of course all broke down when his three sons missmanaged the regions that he left them and then it just further slid into feudalism . . . but anyway . . . blame Charlemagne . . tha's what I always say

The Ecclesiastical state that you mentioned . .. was that the confederation of city states that remained loyal to the pope during the struggles between the Pope and (I think) Henry2 (German Emperor- or am I thnking of his father . . . it all blurs)?

I have recently read a very intersting article (scholarly I'm afraid) which discusses the crucifixion and the Jewish role in a unique light.

Basically the author (an orthodox Jewish scholar) argues that the Jews did not support the death of Jesus out of opposition but because both he and they wnated to precipitate his Messianic role and fulfill earlier scripture and they were complicit in this.

Thus, he concludes, it was not the Jews who rejected early Christianity, but early Christianity that rejected the Jews and Jesus's original intent.

Linky

Children were originally believed to descend solely from the father's semen, and the mother was just a womb with legs.

It makes sense then that when the Bible was written a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away that children only inherit their father's sins.

Barto

Scoff. Do you know what Kaballism is?

Judaism has some crack pot sects, including but not limited to Jews for Jesus, and Kaballism is one of them. It is a very apologetic sect, and it is in no way shape or form orthodox. It also barely follows the old testament and derives much of it practices and views from writings by "profits".

Sorry to sound offensive, but can you blame those "open minded" people for thinking that way? I can't. I sympathize with them. Arguably, many of the most visible elements of Christianity are some of its most extreme, most hypocritical, and most abhorrent: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Bob Jones, and Fred Phelps are examples that immediately come to mind. And then there's the Creationists, but I think that issue's been done to death here.

As a Christian myself, I'm deeply ashamed at how many, many people who call themselves "Christians" seem to think they're doing the world a favor by trying to shove their own view of God and Christ down other people's throats, or by arrogantly trying to position themselves on a pedestal, being the only people who know and can ever know, the mind or will of God. Shame on them for reducing a great and truly beautiful religious tradition into a ridiculous laughingstock. Being subjected to Christian hate and mocking myself over my Catholicism, I think that a lot of the people who are really being prideful are Christians themselves.

I always feel that I need to apologize to people like Kickaha. Christianity isn't about arrogantly trumpeting your own horn about how close to God you are. It's about humility and compassion.

err no, I'm afraid I don't - the article was talking about something called Cabala, the medieval Judaic mystical system derived from the Zohar, the Talmud and Apocrypha amalgamated with certain Islamic elements.

What is this kaballism thing ?

As painful as it is to recognize, you are correct... FALWELL, et al, have been the "face" of Christianity for some time now. The problem is not them... it is the fact that people cannot put a "Christian" label to people next door who claim to be Christians. I never became a Christian because of Falwell and crew- it was based on average people around me who demonstrated what their faith meant to them. Sadly, most Christians are twice-a-week Christians at best. We have ceded our role as those who "define" what a Christian in this culture means. Phelps is no Christian, I know that, but the masses do not.

As far as apologizing, I will not apologize for someone else's psychological issue. Falwell and Robertson have their apologists. I truly regret that the sum total of someone's views of what a Christian IS has been dictated by TBN or CBN. Such is the power of the media. I am just sick of people who say "you can't stereotype others" and then lump ALL Christ Followers in with people like Falwell and crew. I am doing my best to see each person as an individual, with individual beliefs and morals. I'm tired of not receiving the same courtesy from the "anti-Christiandom" crowd.

Christians walk a fine line between evangelism and being overbearing. We are supposed to bring people to know Christ through love... not fire and brimstone. I will not back off from the demand that people see me, rather than who they THINK I am based on the societal label of "Christian"

</soapbox>

Seems that the Bible/Gospels/History itself has gone through numerous (and constant) "re-writes" themselves...more than this movie ever had. Making it less coherent day by day.

Great discussion here. Still think Jesus was just a magnetic orator who attracted alot of attention with his beliefs and spirituality (his conciousness too...something people then didn't have much of at the time). When he got too popular/powerful the other spritual and political leaders needed to oust the poor fellow. The masses let them...that's where the "why have you sussed me out?" phrase comes from.

I'm going to compare Mel's movie with Monty's "Life of Brian". Always look on the bright side of life...

My opinion...carry on...

Shawnj

Only if it is obvious that anti-semitism, racism or sexism is clearly present. From what I have heard from all parties thus far, I suspect it is not. I won't know for sure until I see it. A lot of people in this country equate things that are contrary to their basic point of view as "against them", instead of being just another point of view. I think that's what's happening here. There's a differnce between a movie being "contrary to Jewish belief" and being "anti-Jewish". Some people don't get that distinction.

Anti-semitism implies hatred and a will to do harm to Jews. ADM themselves state they don't contend Gibson is anti-semitic... this (indirectly) tends to support my conclusion. Would a man who is not thought to be anti-semitic, really be likely to make a movie that blatantly IS anti-semitic? Or is this really an uproar over one man's interpretation (because that's all it is)? I seriously doubt there is anything in this movie that would move a rational-minded person to be "swayed against all Jews".

Those who can easily be swayed by a movie to act against an entire race of people, will be easily swayed in some other way if they don't see the movie. You can't stop people who are "looking for an excuse" to find their excuse. Sad but true. The rest of us shouldn't be shamed or censored out of seeing this movie because some whack-job might get the idea to go paint a swastika on an overpass. This is America. The movie needs to be seen by people of all stripes so they can make up their own minds and a real consensus reached.



And in so far as it can actually be shown to be blatantly anti-semitic, then I'm all for the ADL speaking out loud and clear. The thing that is kind of peculiar (and the turn this thread has taken bears it out), is that now all of a sudden everyone is saying "This movie is based on the book of John, and the book of John isn't as accurate as the other books. That's bad, mmmm-kay?" [By extension] it seems that the ADM and other groups apparently also think the Book of John is anti-semitic. Let me explain...

....since I was a little kid attending (standard non-Gibsonian Catholic services), I have heard the story of how the Jewish priests resented Christ (because he was bad-mouthing their greed and thus their hypocrisy basically), and how eventually, the decision came to the Romans who said "so before you we have Jesus -- a man who has broken no Roman Law that we know of -- and Barabas... a man who has committed many crimes. Who shall we send to death?"

"...and the Jews in the crowd shouted for Christ and not Barabas." And in the story, the Roman governor WAS sort of dismayed. He didn't really CARE which one he put to death -- or so the story seems to imply -- but he doesn't know why they are willing to overlook an obvious criminal in order that Christ be sent to an "official death". In the end, the crowd gets their hands on Barabas (literally I think) and so they get their cake and eat it too... but all this is not new.

This whole storyline and the preaching of it by MANY churches (not just the Catholic church) is no state secret. Preachers and Priests and Ministers have been "shouting it from the Mountain top" since the days of Colonial times. So it seems to me, all the scenes in the movie the ADM is angry about... are nothing more than the cinematic (and therefore more dramatic because it's visual) retelling of the same exact story noted above. A story many of us have heard dozens and dozens of times over the years. Surely they must've have heard something of it as well?

So if they really believe this interpretation is so off-base and dangerous and anti-semitic... why have they never said anything about it before in the mass media?

I think their problem is not a movie about John's interpretation of events leading to Christ's death, it's about the interpretation itself and only now when it's in the spotlight do they make a big deal about it. Perhaps because in other times, when there was no controversial movie, no one would listen to them, or the Jewish leaders themselves might be looked down upon for bad-mouthing other religions? Just a thought. This movie has given them a sort of distraction to say what -- perhaps -- they've wanted to say all the time, and so it appears to many that "they're just mad about the movie", when what they really don't like is the story. A story which Gibson certainly didn't invent.

From everything I have read and heard about this movie, Gibson is not "making anything up"... he's taking this story straight from the same book (John) we Christians have had read to us by our church leaders for decades and decades. The part about Satan being incarnate (if true) would be the only exception to this AFAICT, and the only one that would be really distasteful, absent something visual in the movie (not spoken) that I haven't yet seen.



Segovius
I understand where you're coming from, in terms of not looking upon Jesus as being truly human, when analysis of his sacrifice is the topic at hand. I think what most Christians believe (for whatever reason), is that Jesus -- when it came to his very life being taken and not just being socially shunned -- also had moments of doubt. He believed he was special in some way relating to God, but he wasn't sure, and so the possibiilty existed in his mind that perhaps he was just throwing his life away. Enduring great social anger and hostility, and great pain... for nothing, essentially.

It is taught to many Christians that while he is hanging on the cross but still alive, he loses faith for a moment and believes he has done this horrible thing to himself, only to endure a bitter human death. That God is not coming to his aid. That is sort of the reason why we believe the magnitude of the sacrifice was as it was. We don't believe that in the hours leading up to his death he was saying to himself "hey no sweat, I'll suffer for a few hours and then everything will be Roses". He was taking a big chance in his own mind, and ultimately that was his faith in God that he showed when he went through with it...

...again not entirely satisfying from a "pure logic" point of view, but just trying to convey why many Christians consider Christ's sacrifice to have been every bit as mentally (and not just physically) trying as those of others who have sacrificed themselves since.

Kabalism is a mystical off shoot of Judaism . . . but to say that it in no way is orthodox is wrong . . . to say that it barely follows the OT is wrong.

There are some variants of Kabalism that are popular and tend towards california style mumbo jumbo spiritualism . . . these are in no way Kabalism.
It should be seen as a form of intense study, a kind of literary criticism of the torah and talmud . . . but is backed by some very serious scholars and spiritual Jews . . . look at Gershem Scholem's book Jewish Mysticism it is a good read.

[EDIT: spelled alternatively: Kabbalism, Cabalism]

There is an annotated version of the Bible that provides an interpretation something like this (it has been over 20 years since I've last done any study):

The psalms are a common form of prayer for the people of Jesus' community (Jews). Psalm 22 does begin with an attitude of despair, but eventually turns that around and expresses a fervent hope and belief in God.

This is an interpretation by Catholic scholars (from the "Jerusalem Bible" which, as I recall, is just the name given to an annotated, modern translation based on many sources and not claimed to be any more valid than any other translation/compilation). This is not a widely held interpretation and any time I have brought it up to Protestant friends, they have dismissed it with, "No I don't accept that. I have my own personal interpretation."

Boring standard history books.


Precisely, the Franks were still polytheists till then.
When writing about the Christian subjects of Clovis, it was of course about the Gallo-Romans. In other barbarian kingdoms there were two main groups: the ruling and warrying élite of the either Arianist or still pagan barbarians, and the conquered Roman (or Romanised) Christian population, including whatever remained of the literate élite.
In the Regnum Francorum, these two groups found it easier to mingle due to the conversion of Clovis and his warriors.


That was the battle of Tobliac.


Charles Martel and Charlemagne were two distinct, abeit related, characters, the first was the uncle of the second, if my memory is correct.


Of course he was not a Merovingian. He succeeded his father, Pepin the Short, who was the first Carolingian king. The Carolingians continued and strengthened the partnership of the Frankish kingdom the Roman Church, which began under the Merovingian Clovis.


The ancient notion of the state, the Res publica (public thing) was rotting away as the Roman Empire itself became more militarised and autocratic, not to mention decadent.
For the Frankish chieftains, there was no difference between sovereignity and property, and so the kingdom was treated like a personal possession to be carved up between heirs after the king's death (which was followed by interencine warfare till a new winner would emerge). Allegiance was also personal, to the king rather than to the kingdom, which naturally led to the feudal system. It took till the end of the Middle-Ages till one could see once again a distinction between the state and the estate.
While Charlemagne was strong enough to keep his kingdom united, the system which he fostered did not favour unity. His death brought an end to the united Frankish kingdom which was finalised by the treaty of Verdun of 843, establishing a kingdom of Francia Orientalis (later the kingdom of Germany, which melted away in small fiefdoms), Lotharingia (later, the duchy of Lorraine), and Francia Occidentalis (which became the kingdom of France).


The ecclesiatical state was the Italian fief which the Popes ruled as a sovereign and most temporal princes. It was founded in 756 and lasted till 1870.

And the reason why the "anti-Christendom" crowd lump the good Christians in with the bad is because WE lump the good non-Christians in with the bad. Turnabout is fair play. I've known many, Muslims, Hindus, Lesbians, Gays, etc. who were inifinitely more socially compassionate and humble than a lot of the Christians I've met in my life. Are they all going to Hell, alongside all of those mass murderers and child molestors, because they're not "Christian"? (As opposed to Christians who are openly racist and sexist who are "supposed" to go to Heaven?) I don't believe that for a second.

I don't mind being labelled a Christian -- I welcome it. And I try to challenge people's traditional views of Christianity, just as how I try to change traditional views within other Christians of ALL other Christians as unsaved heathens who are condemned by default.

Yes, you're right. Use love to bring the message of Christ to people who don't know about it. That's great. It sure beats bashing people over the head with Scripture thinking that they'll instantly convert.

Q. ADL has said the film could fuel anti-Semitism. How so?

A. We fear the consequences of this film. There will be many people who are not so familiar with the Gospel narratives and might believe that everything they see on the film derives directly from the New Testament. Much of what is on the screen is Mr. Gibson's artistic vision and finds its genesis in extra-Biblical sources. We are also concerned about those who already are disposed unfavorably toward Jews and will use this to fan the flames of hatred.

Q. Is the film faithful to the Bible and accepted Christian teachings?

A. The script is based upon the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and John. But in order to weave together the story, these different texts must be harmonized and holes in the story must be filled in. The Biblical text tries to project a story of faith, but some of the narratives also reflect the growing schism between the Church and the Jewish people. Modern scholars have taught that the Gospel narratives must be taught responsibly. Since the Second Vatican Council of the early 1960's the Catholic Church has taught that the Jews of Jesus' time, as well as the Jews of today cannot be held responsible for the death of Jesus.

Q. Who else shares ADL's objections?

A. The concerns are shared by responsible Catholic, Protestant and Jewish theologians, clergy and citizens. A committee of nine Jewish and Catholic scholars studied an early screenplay and unanimously found it to be historically inaccurate, unfaithful to the gospel narratives and to project a uniformly negative picture of Jews. Mr. Gibson and his Icon Productions were aware of and approved of the script study until they received its conclusions.

\

Guess you didn't actually read the ADL's objections to the film.

*Applause*

Thank you, rampancy, that addresses it perfectly. The all-or-nothing exists on both sides of the fence(s), and anyone on any side who has a problem seeing that generally could be classified as one of the offenders. \

There's a broader context here though, and I think this anti-Semitism issue has to be seen in light of that context.

1. Most historians believe that it is implausible that Jews had much influence over the Romans to carry out an execution.

2. Although the Bible portrays it that way, it is likely that the authors may have changed the events a bit in order to make the story more palatable to Romans, as well as to fight an internal battle with some Jewish leadership at the time.

3. Gibson's movie, by some accounts, goes even further than the Gospels in blaming the Jews for the crucifixion. (Although I've read that some of the scenes have been removed for the final cut.)

4. Some Christians throughout history have used anti-Jewish themes in the Gospels to rile up anti-Semitism, including the Holocaust.

Shawnj: I DID read many of the FAQ from the ADL site. I will say this: just because they put nine priests and Jewish scholars together who agreed they didn't like it, means little to me. I have conversely heard other priests speak of it and say that they are not sure what all the fuss is about. There is clearly not a big push from the Catholic church, condemning this movie as yet, so to imply otherwise (even indirectly) is disingenuous on the part of the ADL.

Also, their argument in your quoted text boils down to: "some people are ignorant of the gospels, and therefore may be adversely affected by this film and do something bad".

That is about the most flawed piece of logic I've seen in this whole debate, quite frankly.

As for Vatican II, it has oft been misquoted with regards to this movie though it seems the ADL is nearly on-point. The Council did NOT say that "Jews had nothing to do with it" (as many are claiming). They said that modern-day Jews should not be held responsible for it in any way (basically). It's analogous to those who are the descendants of slave owners in this country, are not to be blamed for their fore-fathers' mistakes. And I agree with that whole-heartedly.

In the end, what this whole thing boils down to, is that there is basically no irrefutable evidence either way. You can either believe Christ was handed over by the Jewish high priests and their followers, or you can believe the Romans did the whole deal. You cannot disprove either theory. The fact that one sheds an ill light on some Jews 2000 years ago doesn't make it "bad". It's another interpretation of something that frankly, none of us have the "inside line" on.

I think another problem the ADL has with this movie is really... how gory it is. And I imagine that any crucifixion was a gory, awful scene. And so of course if there are any Jews standing by as it happens (almost IMPOSSIBLE that there weren't), then the ADL will take that as "a statement that Jews are bloodthirsty", which I think is also disingenuous. Even a fool knows that this story took place thousands of years ago, and so you cannot by logical extension say that what one group was then, they must also be now.

Again, those who look for ignorant excuses to hate will find them. Those who think for themselves will either see this movie and like or dislike it, but not "hate Jews" because of it either way.