One aspect of Jesus (actually the very center of christianity) I never understood was this: Jesus died for our sins. Through our belief in he being the son of god we are suppose to be forgiven. And the reason I hear is that his death was so horrible.
But a lot of other have died, knowingly, a much MUCH more horrible death because they tried to save other people. Think about those people on the roof of Chernobyl shoveling material on the open core. How on earth is the pain Jesus suffered so great that it can save billions while theirs are hardly remembered? Jesus death was in anyway you see it a very normal death.
Someone please expain this to me.
The deal with Jesus's death and christians is two-fold. First, Jesus was God. Second, he never sinned (which is not to say he never made a mistake, just that none of them were moral mistakes). Of course, both of those statements are according the christian bible. If there was strong independent evidence, I suspect my religion would be much larger.
The deal with Jesus's death and christians is two-fold. First, Jesus was God. Second, he never sinned (which is not to say he never made a mistake, just that none of them were moral mistakes). Of course, both of those statements are according the christian bible. If there was strong independent evidence, I suspect my religion would be much larger.
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
Just a quick point: Aramaic isn't extinct - it is widely spoken in parts of Iraq and I have often attended Aramaic mass in the village of Ma'lula near Damascus in Syria, The whole of this village are Christians who speak the same dialect of Aramaic as that spoken by Christ, it is very interesting to investigate their Christianity also which differs widely from the 'decaf' western hellfire versions. It is far more mystical and obviously closer to Jesus' original thought,
According to a transcript released by the network, Hutton Gibson said, ``It's all -- maybe not all fiction -- but most of it is,'' when asked about his views on the Holocaust.
He added: ``They claimed that there were 6.2 million (Jews) in Poland before the war and after the war there were 200,000, therefore he (Hitler) must have killed 6 million of them. They simply got up and left. They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney and Los Angeles.''
Seems that he not only denies it (most of it) but that he thinks they "just got up and walked on over to the Bronx!\
hahaha . . . it's funny but that is the level of thinking that inhabits most Shoa-Deniers . . . its about that idiotic . .. and yet somehow,they are given at least a quasi-diabolic intelligence in the mass media . . .
I gaurantee that you don't take it as BIG ENOUGH!!
it is impossible to concieve of, and retain a sense of such systematic and routinized murder on such a grand scale (all of Europe) where a whole infrastructure was calculated in minute detail simply to irradicate an entire people from the planet . . .
, not simply to irradicate them, but also to squeeze every last possible worth out of them: through slave labour (but fed only enough that they could be worked to death) through appropriation of property, through medical testing, through various body part reappropriation.
Also, I would dare say that Schindler's list is most likely a VERY FAR CRY more historically accurate than any film Gobson has made . . . look at Braveheart . . . a TOTAL travesty of teh history portrayed!!
I gaurantee that you don't know the half of the horror of the Shoa and neither does Gobson!!
. . . that dispicable prick!
Yes, 6 million Jews were killed, but so were 6 million roma (gypsies) and no one cares. Almost 80% of them -killed. And they are still being killed, and still no one cares. That is the travesty of WW II.
One aspect of Jesus (actually the very center of christianity) I never understood was this: Jesus died for our sins. Through our belief in he being the son of god we are suppose to be forgiven. And the reason I hear is that his death was so horrible.
But a lot of other have died, knowingly, a much MUCH more horrible death because they tried to save other people. Think about those people on the roof of Chernobyl shoveling material on the open core. How on earth is the pain Jesus suffered so great that it can save billions while theirs are hardly remembered? Jesus death was in anyway you see it a very normal death.
Someone please expain this to me.
You get it but you don't. The answer is in your question.
Yes, 6 million Jews were killed, but so were 6 million roma (gypsies) and no one cares. Almost 80% of them -killed. And they are still being killed, and still no one cares. That is the travesty of WW II.
I never said I didn't care . . . I think it is part and parcel of teh same travesty . . . and yes you are right it still goes on today. persecution of the Roma is still happenng
You can even see it in a lot of the rhetoric surrouding teh EU . . . such as in a comic book that was published to make the EU more palatable to kids . . . in it, youhave a "bad guy" who is anti-EU, who happens to also be vaguely dark haired and skinned and is characterized as being 'nomadic' rather than settled and stable . . . . in other words: gypsies and jews.
I was "AFK" for a while... let me see if I can cover several points in one fell swoop.
Kickaha: I only meant we shouldn't dismiss the crucifixion in the sense of "no big deal", not that you are literally dismissing that it happened...
...anyway I see now what you are trying to say more clearly than I did before. Basically, I think the answer to why everyone focuses on Jesus' suffering vs. that of "the others" is pretty simple: none of the others claimed to be the son of God. In other words, people -- in their minds -- are not weighting the situation with the same criteria you are. Most people think something analagous to: "because he was God's son, his life was worth than a 'standard human life'. He gave up more than what any other person has given up since."
Not an entirely satisfying explanation of course, but the plain fact is, people get something (be it peace of mind, the promise of salvation or something else) from contemplating Jesus' plight, because if they believe the story, it implies a direct connection with God. Everything else kind of flows from that belief.
However, I agree one can make the argument that while Jesus was here, he was also "only human" and therefore the experience he endured and the potential years on earth that he gave up, were no different (technically) than what any other person who sacrificed themselves has given up. Although, who knows... if he truly did heal the sick with the touch of a hand or fed a crowd with a few loaves... maybe his life on earth could have been more fulfilling (for many people) than any of us know. It's all predicated on faith in the end, so there's really no arguing it to a logical conclusion....
the gelding: So you are saying there is a character in the movie who is obviously portraying Satan "incarnate", and that the Jews ally themselves somehow with this character? That's a new one to me; I'll have to see for myself I guess but I hadn't heard there was a "satan character".
If that's true, and there is an obvious connection made with the Jews in the story then I guess some would have reason to be upset. But I still think it would be wiser for them to just dismiss something like that with a few stinging words, than to make a big to-do about it in the national media. Seems it would only serves Gibson's purposes if any of it ends up being true.
pfflam: So your gripe is basically about the quality of the storyline and the cliche way such a serious subject (as say the independance of Scotland or the US or Jesus) is portrayed... and the subsequent "critical praise" from media dolts who are about as qualified to comment on such things as most history professors are qualified to teach open-heart surgery?
I'm down with that. I guess we'll have to wait and see how "sensationalist" (for lack of a better word) the movie really is.
Fellows: Thank you for the kind words. I don't know how true they are, but I hope you're at least pretty close to the mark (for my own sake). I have my good and bad moments I guess. I think you must know too -- based on comments from many members -- that you're a pretty well-reasoned lad yourself. So hopefully it takes one to know one.
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
I have already seen the film, and in no way, shape or form does it appear to me to be anti-Semitic.
Yes, some of the "enemies" of Jesus are Jews. But this is a story where almost EVERYBODY'S a Jew.
The Temple Leaders despise him, but the hero of the film's a Jew, the disciples are all Jews, Mary's a Jew. Simon, who helps Jesus carry the cross after he stumbles is a Jew.
Aside from Roman soldiers, this is a story of an in-house Jewish debate.
People who'd try to use this as a vehicle for anti-Semitism have missed the point entirely.
?I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father, which hath sent me.? (John 5: 30)
?? my Father is greater than I? (John 14: 28 )
'But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.' ( I Corinthians 11:3 )
so, i'm watching t.v. the other day, and, as usual, i happen to pass over the abc family channel. sometimes, when i'm lucky, i catch reruns of who's line, but they are always followed by the 700 club. so, i say "what the hell?", and i watch it anyway. "maybe i'll figure out where these lunatics are coming from", i think to myself. churchy mcchurchalot blabs about this or that, and how it relates to the awesomeness of jesus or bog or what have you. eventually he moves on to 'the passion...'. he says mel, in his exec producer hat, didn't use typical advertisement channels. he actively sought out ministers, convinced them of the movie, and had them preach to their congregations. i kept thinking, "isn't that blasphemy, or idolatry or something? theres gotta be a commandment or sin that goes against this." isn't it immoral for a modern church to actively participate in advertisement? well, apparently not. the churchies really took to it, and acording to the host, they bought a record amount of pre-tickets. i had a feeling that this movie was going to be religiousy. i mean it has "christ" in the title. but i figured it would be more playful, or funny, like braveheart or loaded gun (or whatever that cop movie was with mel and the other dood). mcchurchison host guy says you can't help but feel evangelized by this movie (i thought it was really funny as he said it like getting evangelized was a good thing). i might go see this flick, if only to witness the first hand controversy. of course, and not surprisingly, the 700 club didn't mention or comment on the [possible?] antisemitism in it.
I have already seen the film, and in no way, shape or form does it appear to me to be anti-Semitic.
Yes, some of the "enemies" of Jesus are Jews. But this is a story where almost EVERYBODY'S a Jew.
The Temple Leaders despise him, but the hero of the film's a Jew, the disciples are all Jews, Mary's a Jew. Simon, who helps Jesus carry the cross after he stumbles is a Jew.
Aside from Roman soldiers, this is a story of an in-house Jewish debate.
People who'd try to use this as a vehicle for anti-Semitism have missed the point entirely.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Originally posted by Anders
One aspect of Jesus (actually the very center of christianity) I never understood was this: Jesus died for our sins. Through our belief in he being the son of god we are suppose to be forgiven. And the reason I hear is that his death was so horrible.
But a lot of other have died, knowingly, a much MUCH more horrible death because they tried to save other people. Think about those people on the roof of Chernobyl shoveling material on the open core. How on earth is the pain Jesus suffered so great that it can save billions while theirs are hardly remembered? Jesus death was in anyway you see it a very normal death.
Someone please expain this to me.
The deal with Jesus's death and christians is two-fold. First, Jesus was God. Second, he never sinned (which is not to say he never made a mistake, just that none of them were moral mistakes). Of course, both of those statements are according the christian bible. If there was strong independent evidence, I suspect my religion would be much larger.
Originally posted by Whisper
The deal with Jesus's death and christians is two-fold. First, Jesus was God. Second, he never sinned (which is not to say he never made a mistake, just that none of them were moral mistakes). Of course, both of those statements are according the christian bible. If there was strong independent evidence, I suspect my religion would be much larger.
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
Originally posted by segovius
Just a quick point: Aramaic isn't extinct - it is widely spoken in parts of Iraq and I have often attended Aramaic mass in the village of Ma'lula near Damascus in Syria, The whole of this village are Christians who speak the same dialect of Aramaic as that spoken by Christ, it is very interesting to investigate their Christianity also which differs widely from the 'decaf' western hellfire versions. It is far more mystical and obviously closer to Jesus' original thought,
Are they gnostic?
According to a transcript released by the network, Hutton Gibson said, ``It's all -- maybe not all fiction -- but most of it is,'' when asked about his views on the Holocaust.
He added: ``They claimed that there were 6.2 million (Jews) in Poland before the war and after the war there were 200,000, therefore he (Hitler) must have killed 6 million of them. They simply got up and left. They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney and Los Angeles.''
from here:Gobson Pere
Seems that he not only denies it (most of it) but that he thinks they "just got up and walked on over to the Bronx!
hahaha . . . it's funny but that is the level of thinking that inhabits most Shoa-Deniers . . . its about that idiotic . .. and yet somehow,they are given at least a quasi-diabolic intelligence in the mass media . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
I gaurantee that you don't take it as BIG ENOUGH!!
it is impossible to concieve of, and retain a sense of such systematic and routinized murder on such a grand scale (all of Europe) where a whole infrastructure was calculated in minute detail simply to irradicate an entire people from the planet . . .
, not simply to irradicate them, but also to squeeze every last possible worth out of them: through slave labour (but fed only enough that they could be worked to death) through appropriation of property, through medical testing, through various body part reappropriation.
Also, I would dare say that Schindler's list is most likely a VERY FAR CRY more historically accurate than any film Gobson has made . . . look at Braveheart . . . a TOTAL travesty of teh history portrayed!!
I gaurantee that you don't know the half of the horror of the Shoa and neither does Gobson!!
. . . that dispicable prick!
Yes, 6 million Jews were killed, but so were 6 million roma (gypsies) and no one cares. Almost 80% of them -killed. And they are still being killed, and still no one cares. That is the travesty of WW II.
Originally posted by Anders
One aspect of Jesus (actually the very center of christianity) I never understood was this: Jesus died for our sins. Through our belief in he being the son of god we are suppose to be forgiven. And the reason I hear is that his death was so horrible.
But a lot of other have died, knowingly, a much MUCH more horrible death because they tried to save other people. Think about those people on the roof of Chernobyl shoveling material on the open core. How on earth is the pain Jesus suffered so great that it can save billions while theirs are hardly remembered? Jesus death was in anyway you see it a very normal death.
Someone please expain this to me.
You get it but you don't. The answer is in your question.
Originally posted by anand
Yes, 6 million Jews were killed, but so were 6 million roma (gypsies) and no one cares. Almost 80% of them -killed. And they are still being killed, and still no one cares. That is the travesty of WW II.
I never said I didn't care . . . I think it is part and parcel of teh same travesty . . . and yes you are right it still goes on today. persecution of the Roma is still happenng
You can even see it in a lot of the rhetoric surrouding teh EU . . . such as in a comic book that was published to make the EU more palatable to kids . . . in it, youhave a "bad guy" who is anti-EU, who happens to also be vaguely dark haired and skinned and is characterized as being 'nomadic' rather than settled and stable . . . . in other words: gypsies and jews.
Kickaha: I only meant we shouldn't dismiss the crucifixion in the sense of "no big deal", not that you are literally dismissing that it happened...
...anyway I see now what you are trying to say more clearly than I did before. Basically, I think the answer to why everyone focuses on Jesus' suffering vs. that of "the others" is pretty simple: none of the others claimed to be the son of God. In other words, people -- in their minds -- are not weighting the situation with the same criteria you are. Most people think something analagous to: "because he was God's son, his life was worth than a 'standard human life'. He gave up more than what any other person has given up since."
Not an entirely satisfying explanation of course, but the plain fact is, people get something (be it peace of mind, the promise of salvation or something else) from contemplating Jesus' plight, because if they believe the story, it implies a direct connection with God. Everything else kind of flows from that belief.
However, I agree one can make the argument that while Jesus was here, he was also "only human" and therefore the experience he endured and the potential years on earth that he gave up, were no different (technically) than what any other person who sacrificed themselves has given up. Although, who knows... if he truly did heal the sick with the touch of a hand or fed a crowd with a few loaves... maybe his life on earth could have been more fulfilling (for many people) than any of us know. It's all predicated on faith in the end, so there's really no arguing it to a logical conclusion....
the gelding: So you are saying there is a character in the movie who is obviously portraying Satan "incarnate", and that the Jews ally themselves somehow with this character? That's a new one to me; I'll have to see for myself I guess but I hadn't heard there was a "satan character".
If that's true, and there is an obvious connection made with the Jews in the story then I guess some would have reason to be upset. But I still think it would be wiser for them to just dismiss something like that with a few stinging words, than to make a big to-do about it in the national media. Seems it would only serves Gibson's purposes if any of it ends up being true.
pfflam: So your gripe is basically about the quality of the storyline and the cliche way such a serious subject (as say the independance of Scotland or the US or Jesus) is portrayed... and the subsequent "critical praise" from media dolts who are about as qualified to comment on such things as most history professors are qualified to teach open-heart surgery?
I'm down with that. I guess we'll have to wait and see how "sensationalist" (for lack of a better word) the movie really is.
Fellows: Thank you for the kind words. I don't know how true they are, but I hope you're at least pretty close to the mark (for my own sake). I have my good and bad moments I guess. I think you must know too -- based on comments from many members -- that you're a pretty well-reasoned lad yourself. So hopefully it takes one to know one.
8)
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
My bible says he's God.
Yes, some of the "enemies" of Jesus are Jews. But this is a story where almost EVERYBODY'S a Jew.
The Temple Leaders despise him, but the hero of the film's a Jew, the disciples are all Jews, Mary's a Jew. Simon, who helps Jesus carry the cross after he stumbles is a Jew.
Aside from Roman soldiers, this is a story of an in-house Jewish debate.
People who'd try to use this as a vehicle for anti-Semitism have missed the point entirely.
?? my Father is greater than I? (John 14: 28 )
'But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.' ( I Corinthians 11:3 )
Originally posted by Whisper
My bible says he's God.
What? you got the Cliff Notes?
(see post above)
Originally posted by thuh Freak
i had a feeling that this movie was going to be religiousy.
Yeah, Biblical epics tend to be kind of "religiousy" movies.
Originally posted by Frank777
I have already seen the film, and in no way, shape or form does it appear to me to be anti-Semitic.
Yes, some of the "enemies" of Jesus are Jews. But this is a story where almost EVERYBODY'S a Jew.
The Temple Leaders despise him, but the hero of the film's a Jew, the disciples are all Jews, Mary's a Jew. Simon, who helps Jesus carry the cross after he stumbles is a Jew.
Aside from Roman soldiers, this is a story of an in-house Jewish debate.
People who'd try to use this as a vehicle for anti-Semitism have missed the point entirely.
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.
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.
it opens Ash wednesday i believe
Originally posted by Frank777
Yeah, Biblical epics tend to be kind of "religiousy" movies.
thats what makes my sentence so hilarious.
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.
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.