or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Passion of the Christ
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Passion of the Christ - Page 5

post #161 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
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.)

For the last time, I have seen the film. The "Blood Curse" scene was still in at that point. (It's since been removed.)

Even with the crowd shouting "His blood be on us, and our children", Gibson's movie goes NO FURTHER than what is in the Gospels. That phrase is in there and that is the only instance in the movie that can be considered really controversial on the anti-Semitic issue, and now it's no longer there.

The accounts you allude to are flat out wrong. I look forward to this thread on Wednesday, when everything's in plain sight.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #162 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
\\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.


What's the connection between Jews being under ruthless Roman occupation and being unable to do anything about it - as one of their own Rabbi's is crucified (one among thousands of Jews crucified by, and otherwise murdered by the Roman death machine) and Jews being Blood thirsty? Was Jesus's mother and disciples blood thirsty as well for having done nothing but watch Jesus supposedly die at that Roman cross? I find your line of argument extremely sly and provocative. In fact, I would find it blood libelous!! <insert epithet>


post #163 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
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).

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.

I think I have to agree with Moogs on this one. Sure, I can definitely sympathize with those who are concerned about how the movie can come across as anti-Semetic, but in all honesty, how could anyone make a movie about The Passion without making it appear that it could be anti-Semetic? Like with the New Testament itself, anyone with the desire could make this film out to be anti-Semetic propaganda, and no doubt more than a few people will. But if they do, it's their problem for thinking that.

Geez. What next? Is the New Testament itself going to be outlawed for appearing to be anti-Semetic?

Maybe I've being overly idealistic, but I too think that the majority of the people who will be watching this movie (moderate, mainstream Christians) will be intelligent enough to know that this is simply one man's interpretation of what happened in Scripture. I really don't think that watching this movie will induce the masses to rush out of the theatre (literally) screaming bloody murder.

Oh, and one more thing: I looked up the issue of Jews being responsible for the death of Christ in my handy-dandy Catechism, and here's what I found. Moogs, I guess you'd be interested in this:


(Part One, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 597)
Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus' death

The historical complexity of Jesus' trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the partcipants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the Apostles' call to conversion after Pentacost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter, in following suit, both accept "the ignorance" of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still, less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd's cry: "His blood be on us and our children!" a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. As the church declared at the Second Vatican Council:

"...Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion...The Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture."
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
post #164 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by rampancy
Geez. What next? Is the New Testament itself going to be outlawed for appearing to be anti-Semetic?

Maybe I've being overly idealistic, but I too think that the majority of the people who will be watching this movie (moderate, mainstream Christians) will be intelligent enough to know that this is simply one man's interpretation of what happened in Scripture. I really don't think that watching this movie will induce the masses to rush out of the theatre (literally) screaming bloody murder. [/i]

Yeah, you'd definitely have to be a moron to come away with anti-Semitic feelings after reading or seeing a movie about the Gospels. Unfortunately, it's happened, and I understand why people are concerned. Many people believe the way the Bible portrays the Jews' responsibility for Jesus' death is at the root of anti-Semitism throughout history.

Apparently, the movie been changed some, and Frank777 is saying the blood curse was taken out, which is probably a good thing, because if there's any specific verse that boils down the whole thing, that's probably it. BTW, that's another great example of how the whole anti-Jew angle was stuck in the Gospels after the fact for effect. Why would a mob curse themselves?

But I think you're right about saying "what's next, the New Testament?" It's just an unfortunate reality that it's a part of Christianity. I just think people want the issue dealt with very carefully. Wasn't it Billy Graham who said that this is the greatest opportunity for evangelism or something like that? I read an estimate that said more people would probably see this movie than all of the Passion plays ever, combined. And then considering the already-present anti-Israel feelings out there, and you have concerns.
Quote:
"...Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion...The Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture."

And why do you think they felt it necessary to say that, if there's really no problem? To me, the fact that this statement was made underscores the concerns about the issue, it doesn't mitigate them. No one thinks a bunch of Bishops from the Vatican, or average Catholics serious enough to think about Vatican II, are going to go out and kill Jews or something. It's the people who consider themselves Christian but aren't exactly tuned into these kinds of niceities that might be a concern.
post #165 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Nope.
The second vatican council is somewhat controversial and lead to the splinter group of which gibson (and his father) are part.

Vatican II was hardly unique in that regard. Every major Ecumenical Council has resulted in the creation of a splinter group which rejects the new positions of the church as being antithetical to the faith. The most numerous of these groups is the general collection of folks who have themselves split ad naseum and whom are grouped under the label "Protestant."

If I recall correctly, Gibson's particular sect didn't split off after Vatican II, but after Vatican I. But Gibson has espoused some belief in Papal Infallibility, which was the main issue leading to the Vatican I schism. So he's more of an anti-Vat 2 guy who hangs with anti-Vat 1 folks. He may qualify as a full-blown sede vacantist.

Kirk
post #166 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by rogue master
[B]The divinity of Christ evolved from the Gospel of Mark through the Gospel of John. Mark's Gospel (the first one written that is in the New Testament) was written for the Jewish community. The same can be said for Matthew's Gospel. Luke on the other hand was writing to both Jews and Gentiles while John wrote prodimenantly for the Gentiles. In the Gospel of John we find the virgin birth and the resurrection, neither of which are in Mark's Gospel.

Actually, it goes back farther than that. The question at hand is the moment of diefication of Jesus, when Jesus became Christ.

In Paul's writings, the revelation of Jesus' divine nature was the ressurrection. Christ's overcoming of death was the manifestation of his divine nature.

Mark moved this point forward, to the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, during which the dove (an image of God, and now the image of the Paraclete) sets down upon Christ as God speaks of his devotion to his son. Matthew, being drawn from Marcan material, regurgitates this timeline.

Luke moves the point forward again, to the divine conception of Christ (not to be confused with the Immaculate Conception, which refers to Mary, not Jesus). Jesus in Luke is born and lives his entire life with the imprimatur of divinity upon him (as witnessed by his reception in the temple).

John, in an attempt to make the Gospel more palatable to the Roman Empire (as did Luke), and to confront the charges of the Gnostics, the first heretics of the church, makes Christ preexistent in his narrative, the Word which was made Flesh. Jesus was not only divine from the point of conception to the writer of John, he was divine from the beginning of time.

This emergence of Jesus from man who arose to Godhood, who was bestowed Godhood, who was born in Godhood to Jesus who was pre-existent as God was the chief Christological development of the first Christian century. From the point of John forward, the preexistent God-Christ was the majoritarian, orthodox view, consented to by the Church universal. The letters of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries conform to the Johannine view.

It is inaccurate to say that the divinity of Jesus as a preexisting God is an addition accrued in the Constantinian period. The entire historical record speaks against this point (read the writing of the Doctors and Fathers).

After John, Christological concerns moved to more interesting questions like what the mixture of divinity and man there was in Christ and how the two were interrelated.

Kirk
post #167 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm just starting to read about this historical Jesus stuff, but I've also read that the Gospels were at least partially targeted at Romans, and so blaming it on them wouldn't go over so well. So the role of the Romans in the crucifixion was downplayed, and the role of the Jews was played up: Herod and the Jews were the real bad guys, and Pilate was just a nice guy who did what the Jews wanted. Of course, that's probably utter nonsense and really doesn't make sense in historical context.

Yeah, you can't read the Gospels as being anywhere near to what we consider a history text. The political needs of the early church were reflected in the tone and tenor of the documents, from Pauls' "zeal-of-the-convert" anti-Semitism to Matthews' attempts to woo Jews to Jesus by casting him in a very Moses-style role, with his flight to Egypt, his 40 days in the desert, etc.

Kirk
post #168 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by rogue master
[B]Mel Gibson is an ultra-conservative Catholic. I believe he is a member of Opus Dei, a Catholic group that does not follow the teachings of the Vatican II or the pope.

I don't believe Gibson is a member of Opus Dei.

Nor is Opus Dei schismatic, as you imply. It is in communion with the Pope, and while it is very conservative, and very much pre-Vatican II, it does pay lip services to the teachings of the most recent Council, as any faithful Catholic organization must.

Kirk
post #169 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Slackula
It's got to be better then Scorcese's "The Last Temptation of Christ", the first twenty minutes of which was pretty much just Willem Dafoe running around in the middle of nowhere constantly yelling: "I hear voices in my head!"

Accents aside, Temptation is perhaps the most introspective and theologically rich film about Christ ever produced. It is a cinematic consideration of the coexistence of the divine and the human within Jesus, and a questioning search to determine when Jesus himself recognized his own divinity (in the movie, it is at the Crucifixion, a point that none of the Biblical writers cite, though many cite different periods).

Dafoe is not Jewish nor even Roman, but he's definitely the most credible Christ I've ever seen on film.

The book is a hard, hard read. But worth it.

Kirk
post #170 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
[B]Even in our laws, if one person gets the death penalty for someone else crime, the other person can't be charged for it.

That's not actually true. A prosecutor might not try a case if someone else has already been convicted and punished, for the damage it could do to the justice system, but there's no law to prevent it. Framing someone for a murder you commit and seeing to it that they are executed doesn't free you to walk around say "I did it! I did it!" In fact, if you are involved in getting someone else penalized (executed) for a crime you committed, you could easily end up being charged with two murders.

Kirk
post #171 of 513
I look forward to watching the blood curse on DVD.
post #172 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
The Gospels, which were written in the lifetimes of those who saw him, say that the Temple Leaders petitioned for his crucifixion.



The Gospels were all written by humans with very clear political motives. But that doesn't change the fact that crucifixion was a punishment meted out only by the Roman Empire, and that Jewish leaders in First Century palestine had no authority to crucify or request the crucifixion of anyone.

Also, the earliest Gospel dates from approximately 30 years after the crucifixion. It was written by Mark, who was a convert to Christianity who studied under first Paul and later Peter, and whose Gospel is considered to be Petrine in its theology. He was not an eyewitness to the crucifixion.

Neither were Matthew or Luke.

John Zebedee was a witness, but he also did not write the gospel named after him. It was written by either John, his disciple, or perhaps the Johannine communtiy, after the passing of the apostle. Written perhaps as late as 110, it is the fullest theological incarnation of First Century Christology. It is also almost entirely allegorical in nature and does not even attempt to ascribe to the timeline of the earlier works. It is Christologically and soteriologically the richest of the Gospels, but also the hardest to make into a linear tale.

It's a shame that Gibson would take John as his template. It least lends itself to cinematic interpretation, is the most anti-Semitic of the Gospels (written in part as an appeal to the Empire) and is the least representative of the Four.

Quote:
I doubt every new rabbi/prophet that appeared in Judea in the first century was on the Romans Ten Most Wanted list or even their radar screen.

No, but every rabbi associated with John the Baptist almost certainly was. The Baptist was considered a potential precursor to the Messiah, whom the Empire feared would lead a revolution to establish a separate Israel. This was also what the Zealots expected, which is why many of the Zealots (including Judas Iscariot) turned on Jesus in the end. Jesus was perhaps a student of the Baptist, and certainly was associated with him, thus putting him on the Roman Radar, so to speak.

Kirk
post #173 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
I thought that the Jesus=god equation was something started by Constantine in order to make it all more comprehendable to the Roman-religion people within the Empire. , , whereas before that it was more that Jesus was the Son of God

The divine nature of Christ was clearly the orthodox position of the Church, as reflected in the non-Gnostic gospels (both canonical and not) and the writings of the early Doctors and Fathers.

The earliest debate was not if Christ was divine, but when his divinity was imparted. Later debates centered around the interrelation between his humanity and his divinity.

KIrk
post #174 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
I don't believe Gibson is a member of Opus Dei.
Nor is Opus Dei schismatic, as you imply. It is in communion with the Pope, and while it is very conservative, and very much pre-Vatican II, it does pay lip services to the teachings of the most recent Council, as any faithful Catholic organization must.

According to what I've read about Opus Dei, the Pope himself granted them special privileges; for example, as a group, they aren't subject to the authority of the Bishops.

They're also very secretive, and also take part in all kinds of rituals, like flogging themselves with a whip in penance (among other things). They're also quite wealthy, and fairly powerful. They seem to be something like Catholicism's version of the Illuminati. Hmm.
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
post #175 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by JewelsVernz
What's the connection between Jews being under ruthless Roman occupation and being unable to do anything about it - as one of their own Rabbi's is crucified (one among thousands of Jews crucified by, and otherwise murdered by the Roman death machine) and Jews being Blood thirsty?

You're missing the thrust of my earlier argument. I was making the point that groups like the ADL may watch this movie, and because of the gore (which is really the only thing *new* about how this story is being told) will make the CLAIM that Gibson is trying to paint Jews as "blood thirsty". I didn't say that they actually *were* bloodthirsty.

I was saying, that given the breakdown of the population in that area at that time... it's almost impossible that there weren't *some* Jews looking on as Christ (who had committed no crime to speak of) was put through this ordeal. That is a separate issue from "whether they were powerless under Roman rule". So if Gibson protrays the SCENE accurately (i.e. Jews present and doing nothing), then the ADL will spin that as him "portraying Jews as bloodthirsty", when all he is really doing is showing a crucifixion in a more realistic way than has been done till now. So he can't win where the media spin is concerned can he?

If he cleans up the blood and makes everything "more family-friendly", then he has -- essentially -- failed to tell the story in a more accurate way (and thus is no different from any other movie about this topic). If he shows what he really suspects a crucifixion was like (and we have no reason to doubt it was a bloody affair), then he's trying to make a political statement all of a sudden... I don't see why this concept is so hard to grasp.



Quote:
I find your line of argument extremely sly and provocative. In fact, I would find it blood libelous!! <insert epithet>

Yes, you're right. I'm a sinister bastard trying to drag people into a debate so they will side with Mel Gibson (... or something). I haven't said one harsh word to anyone in this thread whether they disagree with me or not, so try and extend me the same courtesy OK? Trying hard not to turn this thread into a flame-fest.
\

You seem to be under the impression that I am trying to make statements about Jews, when what I am trying to do is show a context that the mass media will never place on this situation, in an attempt to explain why the ADL is so upset (and maybe why they shouldn't be). I have even clearly stated: I don't believe today's Jewish community should in any way be tied to or held responsible for what happened 2000 years ago. Can I be anymore clear??

I stand by my initial argument: the ADL and groups like them are really at odds with the story itself, and that it has been given "new life" by the cinematic experience (i.e. images and not just words). And because we have never seen such a portrayal (no effort to hide the blood, etc.), I think it's shocking to them and so they come out and rally against the movie and its makers, rather than just saying:

"We do not believe the story in the Book of John is necessarily accurate or fair in how it portrays Jews at the time of Christ. And though we respect other religions and their right to preach the Book of John, it still concerns us that a movie has been made which depicts the crucifixion so vividly, when from a historical point of view, we aren't really sure how everything transpired."

Instead, the ADL immediately cries "anti-semitism" and makes a fuss in all the ways necessary to make a big media circus out of the whole thing, rather than debating it calmly and intelligently and being more forthcoming about what it is they disagree with.

Is that [really an "unfair" interpretation of what is transpiring] in your mind??


Again, I will have to wait until I see it, but my sense is, Gibson has made a film that makes no attempt to hide the grotesqueries of the act of crucifixion (anyone's crucifixion), and it has shocked people into this debate, but they can't own up to what shocks them.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #176 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by rampancy
I think I have to agree with Moogs on this one. Sure, I can definitely sympathize with those who are concerned about how the movie can come across as anti-Semetic, but in all honesty, how could anyone make a movie about The Passion without making it appear that it could be anti-Semetic?

Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion

Um. The objections to this film go a bit further than just violence.
post #177 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion

Um. The objections to this film go a bit further than just violence.

Many thanks for the link. I'm going to read through it more thoroughly as soon as I've finished this lab report I've got to do.

You know, the more I think about this, the more I realize that until we actually see the movie (or get our hands on a script) will we be able to make any real judgement call as to whether or not Gibson was really trying to make an anti-Semetic movie. If any of you have seen the trailer, could you comment on certain elements of it (if any) that would clearly be anti-Semetic? (I'm not trying to be confrontational, btw, just simply curious.)

I can definitely see myself in the middle of the theatre with a clipboard and a small lamp, reading over a printout of the site ShawnJ linked to with a pen in my hand.

"Hmm...Accurate portrayal of Pilate as tyrant...check...Jewish religious imagery...check...Roman soldiers...check..."
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
post #178 of 513
<-- literally laughed out loud.
post #179 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
You're missing the thrust of my earlier argument..


I didn't miss your argument. The fact is, as far as I know, the ADL hasn't specifically made that claim. You have. You're the one that snaked that line of argument trying to dress it up as an argument the ADL might make. The argument is yours. And you've still to explain it. So what's the connection?!!

What is the connection someone should make as they watch Jews haplessly suffer the brutality of Roman occupation and them being blood thirsty? You think that connection might be there in the movie? You think it might be in the story - i.e., The Official Roman Edition? I want to know where you got this idea from. C'mon Moogs, don't be shy. Speak up!
post #180 of 513
Quote:
You're missing the thrust of my earlier argument

Quote:
You're the one that snaked that line of argument

This is starting to turn into one big, long, hard argument.
post #181 of 513
Less to be concerned about than some thought? Hopefully.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #182 of 513
I have the same thread running in MacNN, and I was alerted to this thread by one of your members. If you ever happen by MacNN, and would like to browse my thread. Invitation extended.


-GF

The Passion of The Christ : MacNN / Forums / Lounge
Coming soon...
Reply
Coming soon...
Reply
post #183 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by JewelsVernz
I didn't miss your argument.

Yes, you did. And you still are...

Quote:
The fact is, as far as I know, the ADL hasn't specifically made that claim. You have.

If you haven't read or heard any comments from the ADL or others in the media calling this movie (in effect) "one that depicts the Jews of the time as blood-thirsy", you're not paying attention. It's all over the place! Just watch a few interviews on MSNBC or whoever happens to be covering it in the coming days. The detractors say the same kinds of things, over and over... and over.

"This movie unfairly blames the Jews..."

"This movie makes Jews look cruel..."

"This movie overstates what happend..."

"This movie is an unfair portrayal..."

Ad infinitum... but the implication of all these is the same: the Jews were out to see Jesus executed in this movie (and the ADL and others don't feel it's true / fair).

Quote:
You're the one that snaked that line of argument trying to dress it up as an argument the ADL might make. The argument is yours. And you've still to explain it. So what's the connection?!!

Idiocy. Won't even honor it with a rebuttal. Given your post count is in single digit territory, if I were you, I might take a hint from the fact that other veteran posters in here (even those who may disagree with me) are not taking the "in your face" type of stance that you are. That is to say, they know me a lot better than you do and so if they don't see anything wrong with the way I'm making my argument... well you figure out the rest.


Quote:
What is the connection someone should make as they watch Jews haplessly suffer the brutality of Roman occupation and them being blood thirsty? You think that connection might be there in the movie? You think it might be in the story - i.e., The Official Roman Edition? I want to know where you got this idea from. C'mon Moogs, don't be shy. Speak up!


A) I've made an effort to reply to all of your assertions thus far, no matter how baseless they seem to me, but your attitude is getting old fast. I haven't said a thing that seems to offend anyone, other than you. So knock off the "snake" and "shy" talk. As if I've somehow dodged something. The more you post, the more you come off as a troll and nothing more.

B) I DON'T KNOW what connections and ideas the general public "should draw" from this movie. I only know what the ADL *seems* to be drawing from it, based on their FAQ and several interviews with ADL supporters than I've seen on TV. Intelligent people will make up their own minds when they see it, and as I've said THREE TIMES NOW, I haven't yet MADE MINE UP, because I haven't seen the movie. I've made crystal clear (to everyone buy you apparently) that I am trying to show some CONTEXT (you know what context is, right?) as to why the ADL might be so upset about this (beyond just the superficial issue of "gory depictions").

I'm trying to look at the whole thing with an analytical / critical eye... apparently this bothers you.

Note that I never said they were WRONG to be upset, just that (TO THIS POINT) I think they might be overreacting somewhat. Who knows... I might see the movie this week and totally change my mind about that part. Maybe Gibson put all kinds of inappropriate themes in the movie and I will side with the ADL... I'm just making points based on what I've seen and heard to date.

Get that through your head before you post to me again, OK?

C) I don't have an agenda, so you can stop badgering me as if I do. If your next post doesn't bag the accusatory overtones, don't expect a response.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #184 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
I don't believe today's Jewish community should in any way be tied to or held responsible for what happened 2000 years ago. Can I be anymore clear??

As opposed to the Jewish community being responsible 2000 years ago? Is that it?

Why? Because according to The Official Roman Edition a small number of subservient Jews supposedly went along with the execution of a popular Jewish Rabbi antithetical to the political situation in a country suffering the brutality of Roman occupation?


How fair minded of you.
post #185 of 513
As a dane I am truly offended by the silly way Vikings are portraied in "Erik the Viking". And there is no historical proof at all they played "axe the redhead" with that woman as it is presented.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #186 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by JewelsVernz
As opposed to the Jewish community being responsible 2000 years ago? Is that it?... How fair minded of you.

Go read my posts again. I'm not responding to another word you say until you can demonstrate that you've read them all. You're either really bad at reading comprehension, or you're just trolling for an emotional response from me. Hint: you won't get it.

Anyone else care to get this thread back on track in the meantime? Let's not let this thing get derailed at page 5...

8)
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #187 of 513
(Quote the relevant portions to the question, Moogs. Let's keep this one going.)
post #188 of 513
I just meant if anyone had new questions to add or new assertions about the movie or whatever, now would be a good time to post them (in the interest of the thread)... I was hoping to go see the movie Wednesday so I can just come back here and give my definitive take on the movie and let people respond to that however they like... we'll see how the old work schedule pans out.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #189 of 513
Thread Starter 
This is the longest thread I've ever started (not that I'm responsible for that, but I do feel a little residual paternal responsibility) and a thread that hasn't degenerated into toxic name-calling after three pages. I'm with Moogs.
post #190 of 513
If anyone wants to discuss this movie, and not trade insulting remarks,
then you may be better off going to MacNN.

"Jesus was not gay." < Nice. If you can't say something positive or at the very least with a little respect for others with differing beliefs than yourself, then what good are your own beliefs?

Take a good long hard look in the mirror next time. Can you honestly say you have made the smallest difference in anyone's life? If not, then there is your opportunity to enact some change. If you think after reading this, you can tell me the same thing, believe me, I have taken this advice.
Coming soon...
Reply
Coming soon...
Reply
post #191 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by JewelsVernz
As opposed to the Jewish community being responsible 2000 years ago? Is that it?

Why? Because according to The Official Roman Edition a small number of subservient Jews supposedly went along with the execution of a popular Jewish Rabbi antithetical to the political situation in a country suffering the brutality of Roman occupation?



Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational about this, but what you said made me curious. If it were up to you, how would you portray the Passion of Jesus Christ?
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
post #192 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by rampancy
Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational about this, but what you said made me curious. If it were up to you, how would you portray the Passion of Jesus Christ?


A little historical truth would have been nice.

For example: "You can't serve God and mammon."

It would be very obvious to any Israeli living under the imperial boot of Rome that when Jesus said: "You can't serve God and mammon", he's referring to Rome as mammon, and God as Israel. Yes, Jesus advocated harmony - between Jews - as a united front against the Roman occupiers and the puppet regime subservient to them. (You can hear similar voices today in modern Israeli politics). But the Gospels as we have them today are a Roman whitewash of the real history of Israel and it's people. And you don't need to be secular or nonChristian to clearly see and understand this.
post #193 of 513
My turn...

Quote:
Originally posted by JewelsVernz
A little historical truth [emphasis mine] would have been nice.

That's a big word for a discussion that is predicated almost entirely on historical *assumptions* (no matter which version you believe). However, where there is TRUTH, there is PROOF. Care to elaborate on your "truth"?

Quote:
But the Gospels as we have them today are a Roman whitewash of the real history of Israel and it's people. And you don't need to be secular or nonChristian to clearly see and understand this.

Whitewash... so that means it's largely false in your eyes? Not saying it isn't false (it may well be), but can you help sway me to your way of seeing this, and serve up some irrefutable facts to back up your statement that the Roman version is basically "false" and your version (whichever that is) is "true"?

....Like all religious stories, I have a hard time accepting them on face value unless I have some sort of factual data. All my earlier comments are based on common understandings of demographics (Christ lived in an area predominantly populated by Jews) and biology (crucifixions are bloody / unsightly) and psychology (visual tellings of gruesome stories are more shocking that verbal tellings), etc, etc.

Starting to get the picture? I never had an agenda or set-in-stone opinion on the matter, but you clearly do. Even so, I'd love to hear the version you believe to be true and why. I might learn something after all...

Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #194 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
Care to elaborate on your "truth"?

I've given you an example. Work your way from there. All you need is a little common sense to understand. It's common knowledge that the account of Jesus has been tampered with. It also common knowledge that those that did the tampering were hostile to Jews.
post #195 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by JewelsVernz
I've given you an example. Work your way from there. All you need is a little common sense to understand. It's common knowledge that the account of Jesus has been tampered with. It also common knowledge that those that did the tampering were hostile to Jews.

It is well known that the Gospel of John was written for an audience of Gentiles, but that cannot be said of Mark or Matthew at all (and I don't recall if Luke was writing for a Jewish audience or not). Mark and Matthew were Jews writing for Jews who believed that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. So are saying that someone hostile to the Jews altered those Gospels? I find that rather difficult to believe.
'But God really exists' said the old man, and my faith was restored for I knew that Santa Claus would never lie.
Reply
'But God really exists' said the old man, and my faith was restored for I knew that Santa Claus would never lie.
Reply
post #196 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by rogue master
It is well known that the Gospel of John was written for an audience of Gentiles, but that cannot be said of Mark or Matthew at all (and I don't recall if Luke was writing for a Jewish audience or not).

Luke, and its second half, Acts, were written as a two-part apologetic work that it was hoped would show the Roman Empire that they had nothing to fear from the emerging, separate Christian religion.

Kirk
post #197 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by JewelsVernz
I've given you an example.

No you haven't. All you've done is imply my statements and/or Roman historical perspectives are false. You have not given one single statement of what you believe to be true. What is your version of the story (generally)? Out with it.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #198 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
No you haven't. All you've done is imply my statements and/or Roman historical perspectives are false. You have not given one single statement of what you believe to be true. What is your version of the story (generally)? Out with it.




LOL.

Although I think I made myself very clear, it's interesting that you would press me. Especially considering I didn't press you on your evasive non-answers. But I can see you're getting feisty and wanting to get yours. So here it goes:

I don't believe Jesus was at all sympathetic or even neutral towards the Roman authorities. Any such depiction implied in the Gospels would be an obvious falsehood. Moreover, I believe Jesus was at the vanguard of a fermenting nationalist rebellion that wanted to oust the Romans from Judea. I also don't believe Jesus made any claims to being divine or having divine powers. Jesus was a popular Rabbi among the common folk because he was antithetical to the thieving murderous Roman beasts and their cronies in Jerusalem. And that was why he was crucified. Jesus could never have been a threat to the Jewish religious authorities, because they too, like everyone else, naturally wanted the Roman occupiers out of the country. Common sense also dictates that should Jesus have made any heretical claims (being the son of God, being born a virgin birth, etc.), he would have met his death by stoning (Jewish punishment), and not by crucifixion (Roman punishment).
post #199 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by JewelsVernz
I've given you an example. Work your way from there. All you need is a little common sense to understand. It's common knowledge that the account of Jesus has been tampered with. It also common knowledge that those that did the tampering were hostile to Jews.

I've seen this ridiculous claim a number of times in this thread and it's never accompanied by any sort of proof (with good reason.)

When was the New Testament "tampered" with? There are all sorts of manuscript evidence and tens of thousands of fragments of the New Testament in museums all over the world.

Muslims use the same claim that the Gospels were "tampered" with, and the Koran was not. But there are exisiting Bibles from Muhammad's time that say the same thing the Bible does today. (Accounting for spelling, grammar and language changes over time, of course.)

Tampering with scripture is a serious charge that believers are specifically told will send them straight to Hell. (Rev. 22) History records the herculean efforts to copy manuscripts by hand before the printing press. After pages were hand-copied, the number of words and letters on each page would be counted (and also the words, down the center of the page, I believe) to ensure that not a word was left out.

The Christian keepers of the New Testament inherited a rich legacy from their Jewish predecessors. Right now in Ottawa, there is an exhibition of parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of which are 1000 years older than any manuscripts of the Bible that were previously known. These show NO DISCREPANCIES between the Scrolls and present Bible manuscripts.

From some of the posts here, one would guess church leaders over the years have casually changed the Bible accounts to suit their own prejudices. AFAIK, there is no support for any such contention.

The Gospels were written from four different points of view and highlight different aspects of the events they describe. But as discussed earlier in the thread, the accounts are dated with the lifetimes of those who saw the events (whether written by eyewitnesses or not.)

As at AppleInsider, when Believers make posts about issues they tend to reference the scriptures that they think support their point of view. That also held true for early Christians, and it may surprise some of you to note there are many, many surviving first and second century church fathers whose written debates about events and issues survive to today. The scriptures they quote are essentially the same as in today's Bibles. (Again, accounting for spelling, grammar and language changes over time.)

To the many proponents of the "Gospels Were Tampered With" argument:

When and Where? Put Up or Shut Up.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #200 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
I've seen this ridiculous claim a number of times in this thread and it's never accompanied by any sort of proof (with good reason.)

Er... mistranslations aren't unheard of. I can dig up a few if you'd like, I have a great-aunt who is fluent in Rabbinical Hebrew, Ancient Greek and some Coptic specifically to study this.

Some of them utterly change the tone of much of Christianity, in my opinion.

Then there are the gospels that weren't altered... just thrown out completely. Thomas comes to mind.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Passion of the Christ