The Passion of the Christ - Page 3

thats what makes my sentence so hilarious.

I managed to get in to one of the "preview screenings"

The Gospels, which were written in the lifetimes of those who saw him, say that the Temple Leaders petitioned for his crucifixion. Josephus, a Jewish historian, confirmed that Jesus had stirred up dissent among the Jews.

Things like running money changers out of the temple and calling some religious leaders "snakes and vipers" wouldn't go over well with the temple establishment.

At the time, Israel was under Roman occupation and the religious (and also political) leaders of Israel were allowed to continue their religious practices as long as the peace was kept.

It seems obvious that the local authorities would have had to deliver him up.
Remember, this is a time when Homeland Security didn't have face recognition scanning technology. They needed Judas just to point him out in the garden.

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.

Well, no one is "crying wolf." In fact, I don't think the case can be made with any plausibility that the criticism against the film is generally disingenuous. Is it more likely that the ADL and every other organization criticize the film for publicity or according to principle? Do you agree that society should condemn or discourage anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc wherever it exists? It's their policy: "ADL believes that it can best promote change and raise awareness through making our voice heard." Individual instances are certainly worthy of attention, but this is far greater than just a film. People have called it - and critics may even agree- quite possibly the greatest evangelizing tool ever.

Check out the ADL's Frequently Asked Questions about ADL and Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."

For some reason I'm seeing Jesus as the Ace of Spades in a deck of cards...

Hmmm.

Jesus + 12 disciples = an entire suit.

Just because someone managed to murder more people than Hitler, that does not mean that the Holocaust is any less horrible.

Besides, I recall reading somewhere that some 20 million russians died while Stalin was in power. Alot of those were not murdered by his direct orders, but alot did die as a consequence of his actions. Not counting the people he had killed, there were alot of people who died needlessly because of his tactical commands and his refusal to allow loosing troops to either surrender or retreat. Any captured russian, wounded or not, would if he was "liberated" by russian hands, face instant termination, because surrendering was considered treason and puninshable by death.

Moogs, imo philosophically we must exclude Jesus' death from the discourse if he was God.

Basically, the ressurection negates the sacrifice - it is not a question of suffering, it is a question of giving up one's life (the ultimate sacrifice) and this clearly Jesus didn't do if he rose again.

Put it this way: if all you have to do to save the world is to die painfully for a few hours (and it was a few hours not days as is usual in crucifixion) but you could be back on the go a few days later - well I reckon quite a few people would step up to the plate.

Of course, if he was human (as I believe he was) then the sacrifice stands and no doubt this was why he is so revered intitially. But to deify him for that undermines the whole philosphical point of Jesus's teaching and is bordering on an insult to it imo.

Shawn, let's be fair about this. If "fundamentalist" Christians were complaining about a film a year in advance of release, and then acknowledged they hadn't seen the film, they'd be laughed off this board. Especially by you.

Most film are evangelizing tools. Schindler's List wasn't made just for fun.

Europe's past does include dark periods of anti-Semitism, and there could be a valid concern that could have been raised more discreetly.

But nutjobs who say it's cause for worry because the film is based "on the Christian Bible" are doing no-one any favors.

Well said, segovius.

It as if someone went to a person born and raised rich and said "You can feed the homeless of this country if you only give it all up and become homeless yourself."

That'd be a pretty big sacrifice, to help others.

But it would kind of defeat the 'sacrifice' of it, if instead, the person knew that in a week they'd inherit another massive amount of money, and they'd be back in the pink, wouldn't it?

My friend studies history and archeology and he told me that today historic science teaches students that what it says in the bible, about jews being responsible for the death of Jesus, is actually wrong. That was a little detail added later when the roman empire took up christianity as its official religion, when it wouldn't be very good to have the blood of Christ on roman hands.

So they made up that bit about Pontius Pilatius offering the jews to set one of the captives free and the jews freeing the murderer (Barabbas was it?) rather than Jesus.

Well, with the possible exception of John, academic opinion is that the Gospels clearly weren't written in the lifetime of Jesus or by eyewitnesses because:

a) they contradict each other on significant details regarding the life of Christ

b) they contradict known historical facts

None of the Gospels really stand up to scrutiny by rigorous analysis and Mark is even self contradictory. of course they may have been tampered with after the event (undoubtedly they were) but this is another strike against them as historical documents.

no, figures are as high 45-50 million when taking into account the war.

The returning soldiers were 'liquidated' because they may had been contaminated . . . not somethng as high in principle as 'they gave up'

Also, right before the actual war started Stalin had his entire General staff 'liquidated' because he had 'suspicions they may be powerfull and have ideas.

especially MelG., who started off the campaign of "they said its Anti . . .blah blah" hoping it would be a form of success De Sccandal

Constantine did a concerted PR campaign to try and unify the Empire under something he apparently didn't really believe . . . he went out of his way and changed the face of the religion . . .



He also married Christianity to Politics something that Europe would, both, benefit and pay for for centuries afterwards

academic opinion, scrutiny, rigorous analysis, undoubtedly.

Big words. No links.

are those big words for you?

does an argument become more valid if accompanied by links? this is the net. we can find a link supporting anything we choose. first hand research is better than hand-holding.

An argument becomes better supported with links.

Then you go see what the sources of those links are.

Then the sources of those sources.

Then...

*sigh* I've been in grad school too long.

It's called critical thinking and doing your own research, indeed.

And every time someone posts a link, the link source gets discredited anyway. Why bother? Let them find their own sources. They can't discredit those.

The figure 20 million was something I read somewhere, and it is quoted earlier in this thread too, something I saw after I had posted the message you replied too.

There is a great book written by Anthony Beevor that depicts the horror of the war that both sides suffered. Stalingrad is it's title and in it you can read up on what happened and why. In it it says that Stalin considered all people who surrendered to be traitors and that they were to be put to death, or sent to work camps.

the contamination that you refer too, was it political contamination that troubled Stalin?

I don't understand your point. The ADL has seen the film and they had a working copy of the script in the beginning. Obviously, that's a lot more than nothing. First, let's be accurate.

A discreetly raised concern? How is that going to accomplish anything?

And as far was what the film is based on, by no means can anyone say the film's aim is accuracy. It's essentially Mel Gibson's artistic vision of The Passion- based on a literal reading of the Bible and extra-bibical texts from two stigmatic nuns. Again, let's be accurate.

Most films aren't evangelizing tools, unless you use the word in a very broad sense. And even then it's probably not true. I don't see how Schindler's List figuratively "preaches the gospel" to a certain group. It was more of a general release film geared toward the widest possible audience. This is Spielberg we're talking about, after all. Perhaps the film could be used in an evangelizing manner- to persuade people of something or other. But then you could probably classify anything as "evangelizing."

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.

Constantine converted to Christianity after a vision from God helped him win a crucial battle for control of the Roman Empire. In wasn't until he became emporer (around 400 AD) that the Empire converted to Christianity.

In the early third century (over 150 years before Constantine), the New Testament as we know it was canonized. At that time the Gnostic gospels and other writings were tossed out. As emporer, Constantine outlawed non-canonical writings, which is why most are extant today. In the 1940's two discoveries were made, one in Egypt and one at the Dead Sea (the Dead Sea Scrolls) revealed many other writings of the early church, including the writings that had been outlawed by Constantine. Amongst these was the Gospel of Thomas, written around the time of the Gospel of John. The Gospel of Thomas contains sayings of Jesus and very little else. There is strong reason to believe that the choice of John over Thomas by the ecumenical council has shaped Christianity in numerous ways. The virgin birth and the ascenption (Jesus going bodily to heaven after the resurrection) being two of them.

There is clearly a lot of myth on John's Gospel. It is unfortunate that Mel chose it over any of the others.

On another note, why don't people feel the same way about 'Jesus Christ Superstar'? It clearly puts the blame on the Jews for Christ's death, yet I have never heard it called anti-Semetic.

er... eyah... that's what I was saying

Don't know of any links. Sorry. I just read the Bible and know a little of history. Not to go off-topic but seeing as you ask, try Luke 2:1


These are historically verifiable facts and they happen to be verifiably untrue
- we know from Josephus that Qurinius was governor of Syria in 6 AD which is when Syria was brought under direct Roman rule but Lukes gospel also details the activities of King Herod and makes it quite clear that Herod and Quirinius were contemporaries. Only they weren't.

We know Herod had been dead for at least 10 years when Qurinius became governor of Syria and therefore Luke is wrong. And the Bible is wrong.

The Gospels also contradict themselves on the crucixion btw, maybe I should have given that to be more on-topic. Sorry about that.

I asked for links since my reading tells me that modern "academic opinion" dates the Gospels much earlier than previously thought and well within eyewitness timelines.

The Book of Acts closes with the Apostle Paul in prison awaiting trial and execution. He was beheaded in AD 68 or 69.

But the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem occurred in AD 70. Titus' (Roman) forces had laid siege to Jerusalem and the resulting fire caused the gold-laden Temple to be pulled to pieces. Roman soldiers looking for gold that melted between the rocks literally demolished the building to rubble.

This was heralded as the fulfillment of one Jesus' most well known prophesies - that the Temple would be utterly and completely destroyed. (Matt 24:2). It's even mentioned in the film.

It would have been ridiculous for a "late" Gospel writer not to mention this fact. And if the Book of Acts was written before AD 70 and the Book of Acts mentions that it is the second part of the Book of Luke...

You've already mentioned that the Book of John is recognized as the 'last' Gospel. If Luke was written prior to John, and the other two contain many of the same quotes and sayings, I can't see how the "late Gospels" argument can be considered anything but suspect.

That's what I've read too.

I just started reading about historical views on the Bible and Jesus recently, partially as a result of this film. I did a little research, and the first book I bought was Gospel truth: The new image of Jesus emerging from science and history and why it matters. It got the best reviews as a balanced review of the research, with no wacky "Jesus was gay" theories but no punches pulled either. It's out of print, but I ordered it through Amazon and got it for about $10.

I haven't finished it yet (I haven't gotten to the crucifixion part), but it does seem to be a good objective overview of the research.

I've got a new sig!

nice sig man

Glad to be of service.

The facet that has yet to be mentioned Kick is that Jesus' inheritance is in that indescribable, unknowable eternal afterlife. The reason that Jesus' sacrifice was so groundbreaking, so different from others who have sacrificed their own lives is that they saved your mortal existence...Jesus was saving people's everlasting souls; an incredible differentiation and an astonishing new gift. This is the point that seems to be missed by a lot of topical discussion lately. The suffering was never the objective, it only underscored at what price it was bought.

This thread is one of the best I've seen lately.

I guess if we want to know for sure whether the movie is anti-semitic or not we'll all just have to go and see it for ourselves.

Anti-semite and bizarro catholic cultist or no, let it not be said that Mel doesn't know how to make bank.

Agreed, it is.

My that's precisely my point - what was the 'price'? A few hours of physical suffering? By your own admission, in the face of what was gained, that's barely a token sacrifice. :/

It just seems out of whack to me is all... "He died!" "But he *knew* he was going to be resurrected, so it seems like a copout." "He suffered!" "Yes, so have many other people." "But he saved us all!" "In which case it seems like a pittance for him to have 'sacrificed' when his net total loss was a few hours of physical torment, period."

Am I making any sense?

Now, if he'd given up his eternal divine *soul*... that would be sacrifice.

Otherwise, it looks to me like it's saying that "the sum total of humanity's souls is worth a few hours of physical suffering" which flies smack in the face of "the greatest gift", you know? \

What if there is a seperation of consciousness between his mortal and his immortal soul? For example if he was a mortal who did not have any memory of before or any knowledge of what will happen after his life as a human.

Jesus was gay.

Some very good points brought up people!

Did I not hear born again Mel tell Diane Sawyer that he feels GOD wanted him to make this movie? Someone correct me if I am wrong, please. I'm not saying Mel's a nut case, I just don't trust people with direct lines to GOD. History shows my distrust to be very well placed...

Why does GOD only communicate directly with white people? Hmmm.
I would say that arguably, we happen to be the most technologically dominant "sub-species" of the human race at the MOMENT. However, one can make a very good argument for our (white folk) spiritual, moral and ethical shallowness. The (in modern times...) material devouring=waste crazed adgenda that we have taught so well to the rest of the world. Our contribution to weapons technologies, ie, nuclear, biological and chemical... Man, we're the best. We rule! Heh, ok, ok. Just a couple more items; Joan of Arcadia and Oh God, 'nuff said.

Here's a nitpicker for you religious history buffs. Would not the Roman soldiers have "spoken" Greek at that time? Since Mel and crew are claiming historical accuracy.

Coptic Christians still use Aramaic in high mass i believe

anyway,

One thing that seems wrong to me is that people asume Jesus knew he was going to be resurrected . . . .

that is wrong, it seems that they simply overlook the one thing that Jesus said that may put into question their whole crystal cathedral edifice . . . how do you explain:
"why hast thou foresaken me?"

huh?

seems like he didn't know what was going on to me

From what I've been reading, Mark was the first to be written, and was probably the only one based on an eyewitness to Jesus - whoever wrote it was probably a companion/translator of Peter. It was probably written around the time of the war or just after, around 65-75.

Though I'm not sure why you have "academic opinion" in quotes.

I just finished reading this thread from start to finish, and I'm surprised that it took 3 pages of replies for someone to bring that up.

Excellent discussion thus far!