Maybe so (I don't have any information on this one way or another), but if it was that obvious a ploy, why on earth would the leaders in the Jewish community dignify it by the actions they have taken? Better to just ignore it and wave Gibson off as a "quack" in that case. Why cry wolf, if that's what he's trying to bait you into?
Just doesn't make any sense to be ourtaged over something like this. That's another disease Americans in general have: they love to feel outraged and slighted so that they can bitch about it publicly. Either for sympathy or attention... or something. It's really sad. A culture of victims are we....
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.
Remember, this is a time when Homeland Security didn't have face recognition scanning technology. ... 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.
For some reason I'm seeing Jesus as the Ace of Spades in a deck of cards...
then again, how many people did Stalin systematically murder? i thought it was something over 9 million.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Anyway, is it historically accurate to say it was really an in-house Jewish debate? More likely, he was killed by the Romans, period, and only afterward did people want to break off Christianity from Judaism, and so they made it look like the Jews did 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
no, figures are as high 45-50 million when taking into account the war.
The returning soldiers were 'liquidated' because they may have 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Originally posted by Moogs
Maybe so (I don't have any information on this one way or another), but if it was that obvious a ploy, why on earth would the leaders in the Jewish community dignify it by the actions they have taken? Better to just ignore it and wave Gibson off as a "quack" in that case. Why cry wolf, if that's what he's trying to bait you into?
Just doesn't make any sense to be ourtaged over something like this. That's another disease Americans in general have: they love to feel outraged and slighted so that they can bitch about it publicly. Either for sympathy or attention... or something. It's really sad. A culture of victims are we....
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."
Originally posted by Frank777
Remember, this is a time when Homeland Security didn't have face recognition scanning technology. ... 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.
For some reason I'm seeing Jesus as the Ace of Spades in a deck of cards...
Hmmm.
Jesus + 12 disciples = an entire suit.
Originally posted by alcimedes
then again, how many people did Stalin systematically murder? i thought it was something over 9 million.
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.
Originally posted by Kickaha
For some reason I'm seeing Jesus as the Ace of Spades in a deck of cards...
Hmmm.
Jesus + 12 disciples = an entire suit.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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."
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.
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?
Originally posted by BRussell
Did it open today?
Anyway, is it historically accurate to say it was really an in-house Jewish debate? More likely, he was killed by the Romans, period, and only afterward did people want to break off Christianity from Judaism, and so they made it look like the Jews did 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.
Originally posted by KANE
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.
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.
Originally posted by Frank777
But nutjobs who say it's cause for worry because the film is based "on the Christian Bible" are doing no-one any favors.
especially MelG., who started off the campaign of "they said its Anti . . .blah blah" hoping it would be a form of success De Sccandal
Originally posted by KANE
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.
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
Originally posted by segovius
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.
academic opinion, scrutiny, rigorous analysis, undoubtedly.
Big words. No links.
Originally posted by Frank777
academic opinion, scrutiny, rigorous analysis, undoubtedly.
Big words. No links.
are those big words for you?
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.
Originally posted by pfflam
no, figures are as high 45-50 million when taking into account the war.
The returning soldiers were 'liquidated' because they may have 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.
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?
Originally posted by Frank777
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.
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."
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.
Originally posted by rogue master
As emporer, Constantine outlawed non-canonical writings, which is why most are extant today.
er... eyah... that's what I was saying
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.