For those who ain't acquainted, Mel Gibson's new film is shot entirely in Aramaic, an extinct language that used the Hebrew script, and subtitled. In America and in Europe, Jewish bodies have spoken out against it, saying it takes a too-hard line on Jewish responsibility for the Crucifixion and could even be anti-Semitic.
Mel Gibson is a member of an orthodox Christian sect I don't have time to look up now because I'm meeting my brother for lunch and must run.
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 . . .
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.
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.
Quote:
And if we execute someone and he is confirmed to be dead and then comes back to life, we can't execute him again.
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
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.
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
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.
[ . . . ] 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.
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"?
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.
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.
From a loving God, I still find this a bit... daft.
Quote:
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.
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?
Quote:
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.
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 d?art, 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.
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!"
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.
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
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 SanÂ?Apollinare-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 Â?KhlodovekhÂ?, the name which later became Â?LudwigÂ?, Â?LouisÂ?, Â?LuigiÂ?, Â?LuÃ*sÂ?, Â?LluisÂ? Â?LjudevitÂ?, 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 Â?Carolus MagnusÂ?) in 800.
Quote:
You make it sound like the Roman Church was not in power during the years after 476 . . .
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 Â?Holy 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.
Quote:
Â?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 . . .
I wrote about the division in two empires, in 395, not about the schism of Orient and Occident of 1054.
(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.)
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.
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)?
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?
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.
(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.)
Yes. I have no objection to Christians or Christianity at all. What they do behind the closed doors of their church, or kneeling beside their beds at night, well, that's their business.
Comments
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
For those who ain't acquainted, Mel Gibson's new film is shot entirely in Aramaic, an extinct language that used the Hebrew script, and subtitled. In America and in Europe, Jewish bodies have spoken out against it, saying it takes a too-hard line on Jewish responsibility for the Crucifixion and could even be anti-Semitic.
Mel Gibson is a member of an orthodox Christian sect I don't have time to look up now because I'm meeting my brother for lunch and must run.
I am also an Orthodox Christian.
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 . . .
Originally posted by Frank777
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.
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,
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.
And if we execute someone and he is confirmed to be dead and then comes back to life, we can't execute him again.
Actually, in the state of Texas they can.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
I am also an Orthodox Christian.
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
Originally posted by pfflam
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
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.
Originally posted by pfflam
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
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.
Originally posted by Kickaha
[ . . . ] 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.
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"?
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
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 gaurantee you you are not.
Originally posted by Frank777
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.
From a loving God, I still find this a bit... daft.
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.
Personal problem #2: no sins of the mother? Oh, right, females didn't count for much...
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.
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.
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 d?art, 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.
Originally posted by pfflam
I gaurantee you you are not.
Awesome, I am saved.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
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!"
Originally posted by pfflam
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.
Originally posted by Jubelum
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.
Originally posted by Kickaha
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.
Originally posted by pfflam
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
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 SanÂ?Apollinare-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 Â?KhlodovekhÂ?, the name which later became Â?LudwigÂ?, Â?LouisÂ?, Â?LuigiÂ?, Â?LuÃ*sÂ?, Â?LluisÂ? Â?LjudevitÂ?, 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 Â?Carolus MagnusÂ?) in 800.
You make it sound like the Roman Church was not in power during the years after 476 . . .
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 Â?Holy 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.
Â?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 . . .
I wrote about the division in two empires, in 395, not about the schism of Orient and Occident of 1054.
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.)
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
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.
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)?
Originally posted by Kickaha
Personal problem #2: no sins of the mother? Oh, right, females didn't count for much...
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
Originally posted by Kickaha
(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.)
Yes. I have no objection to Christians or Christianity at all. What they do behind the closed doors of their church, or kneeling beside their beds at night, well, that's their business.
Just as long as they keep it out of my face.