PASSION OF THE CHRIST

Off Topic
61

Bazence, you seemed to miss the whole point of this discussion!

BTW: Its a discussion, not a debate. We’re just exchanging opinions here, not trying to convert one another (except a few half-twits).

I know you’d be more comfortable if me and my tribe would just shut up and meekly keep our opinions to ourselves when charges of deicide and age-old stereotypes are re-introduced to the public by “artists” like Mr. Gibson…but, you’ll have to humbly accept my opposition to such wishful thinking.

And maybe it would help if Jews didn’t already feel threatend by another group of religious whackos who’ve been using their religions’ depiction of Jews to justify suicide bombings and other acts of terror. Not that this is your fault or Christianity’s, but it sure don’t help the situation any!

Peace, out!

62

bazence writes:
“EXACTLY Brian, IN THE PAST. its not the same world as it was 100 years ago!”

Actually, in the RECENT past, in Nazi Germany and in Poland. And Bazence, the deicide charge is rife in Arab anti-Jewish writings. Recently, a miniseries on Arab television revolved around a Jewish world conspiracy, where they kidnap a Christian child and use his blood for matzah. Al-Quaeda organizations are using the beheading of Daniel Pearl after he announces he is a Jew as part of their recruitment video. CBS showed a clip on TV and Palestinian kids called in and voiced their enthusiasm! A wave of antisemitism has swept Europe, where (mostly by Arab immigrants but also neo-nazis and some Christians) Jews have been attacked, some killed, their property vandalized, their synagogues and cemetaries desecrated. The EU has documented this and theatres in France have decided that the problem is so bad, they’re not going to show the Passion. Bigotted elements in European society will use it as an excuse to inflame their passions.

“and as far as the whole “jews werent the only ones that suffered” im giving that point to say that other people suffered and got over it. that is the”

If you don’t see how this comment was insensitive given the fact that no was is making hysterical accusations on this thread, then your pretty blind except to your own sentiments. LittleJay and I, in our respective positions, have only ARTICULATED our worries. So your comment about “screaming anti-semitism” seems to reflect your own intolerance at simply discussing the possibility. Can you allow non-Christians like LittleJay to worry about their own well-being in your Christian universe?

63

Bosco - My dictionary defines faith as the following(Merriam-Webster)- 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

It’s funny that out of all of the possible definitions that you chose that one.

Me Solomon Grundy

64

Solomon:

Me-thinks you’re seeing an agenda where none exists. I don’t have a fish to fry in this debate, though I do like the free exchange.

I chose that particular aspect of the definition because it most accurately addressed the manner in which Biceps was semantically employing the word. In countering the argument that others view belief in the Gospels (or in Jesus as the son of god)as faith, he stated that NOT believing them was faith.

My point is/was that his employment amounted to a mis-use of the term, and a rather sneaky way of presumptively stating that the Gospels/Jesus-as-son-of-man notions were irrefutably proven.

Like I said before: you get to believe whatever you want, and I’ll do the same. But it’s intellectually dishonest to assume something irrefutable proven when that just isn’t the case.

65

Bosco:

You misunderstood what I said. I said that believing in God, Jesus, and the Bible is not “faith” according to that definition. Why, you ask? It is because in the definition it says, “In which there is NO proof.” The key word is NO. There is proof for believing in the gospels, God, and Jesus as the Messiah!

You don’t have to leave your mind behind to believe in Christianty fellas, there are plenty of people out here who have researched this.

66

Biceps:

I think I understood you perfectly. Our disagreement comes from the notion of “proof.” You and fellow Christians see it as such, while non-believers think you have a ways to go before “belief” becomes “proof.”

Which doesn’t necessarily believe you’re beliefs are necessarily wrong, either…it’s just that many believe you can’t quite reach that threshold of proof. Part of that is the conundrum of trying to prove the metaphysical to physical beings like humans. Even if you COULD prove that the Gospels are an entirely accurate representation of historic events (which of itself is a source of great debate), you’d still have the burden of showing that Jesus wasn’t simply a prophet and leader of men but also the actual son of god. And how would one do that?

Anyway, I’ve already written a lot more on this than I’d ever intended. Let’s just agree to disagree, big guy.

67

Hey everyone I found this post way too late to get involved in any of the discions going so I just wanted to say a small bit of what I thought.

IMHO: The movie was awsome in that it did follow the Gospels to my own readings and it really brought the books to life and light for any who have read a little but never brought it into their heart.
Lots of people thought the movie pushed the blame towards the Jewish people of the old testament times too much but,(ok now hold on if you aren’t strong in your faith hold on) the Jews might have been the people standing there and cheering when it went down but the fact is we all killed Jesus. We kill Jesus every time we sin, if we didn’t sin there would have been no need for him to die.
Ok now blast away i will check back in a day or two and see who agrees and who wants to stone me.
GET BIG & THANK PRAISE THE LORD
DA

68

DarkAngel, so your point is something like, “The facts are that Pontius Pilate was a complicated guy forced by the Jews to execute Jesus, but in the end, we all did it.”

Speaking for myself, I did not kill Jesus. I wasn’t even born yet. I’m sure many African and Native American children 300 years ago were shocked to find out that they killed this Jesus person and that their suffering was preordained because humanity was so wretched it killed God.

I just want to remind every Protestant on the thread that Mel Gibson thinks you’re going to hell because he doesn’t believe in Vatican II. He wants you to shell out $8 first though. And bring the kids!!!

69

An olive branch for Christians and Jews:

Luke 13:31–“The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.”

Jesus talks about being the messiah, and Pharisees tell him to leave so the Romans won’t kill him.

Acts 5:33-40–“33: When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.
34: Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
35: And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
…”

Gamliel, leader of the Pharisees, saves the lives of the Apostles from the the corrupt high priest appointed by Rome, counseling to wait and see whether it is proven that the late Jesus has brought the messianic age

Acts 23:6-9–“For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
9: And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.”

Paul is in hot water for preaching that the late Jesus is the messiah. The Pharisees protect him in case this turns out to be true.

Also, note that EVERY CONTEMPORARY SOURCE explains that the Roman empire appointed the high priests, and Pilate appointed Caiphus. This is universally accepted. Check the NIV Bible, for example.

In other words, although the Gospels indicate that some Jews or Pharisees (led by Caiphus) called for the death of Jesus, the New Testament also indicates that these men do not represent the Jews or Pharisees as a whole in the time of Jesus.

70

Bosco, What would you accept as “proof”?

Me Solomon Grundy

71

Bosco:

I agree to disagree. No matter how much evidence someone has for a certain subject, there is always people out there who will refute it. Yet, truth is truth…we will all realize it sooner or later…

Darkangel:

I agree with you. Our sins is what Jesus died for. He didn’t have to die for them, yet, He loved us enough to save us. When Bosco challenges what you said…he is right in a sense…of course we didn’t actually kill Jesus…but we are humans, and therefore are sinful in the sight of God…and therefore do need redemption…so Jesus died for you, me, Bosco, and everyother human being that has ever lived.

72

Why didn’t Jesus just snap his fingers and wipe the slate clean? Why did he have to die to forgive us? And if he did have to die, why didn’t he chose to go out in a more pleasant way?

73

I saw the movie Sunday. It accomplished two things in my case. First, reminded me of what Jesus did for me. Second, it made me long to research the details and come to a conclusion on the details of the story. It would be interesting to find the facts concerning Pontius Pilot, Ciaphas and Judas. I thought that the movie was very well done. I can?t fault the artistic ability of Mel Gibson or any of the actors. In retrospect I find myself looking at the core story line? God becoming man and giving of himself completely to redeem his people. The story line, however brutal, has captured the minds of believers and non-believers alike. Jim Caviezel has done an excellent job of capturing Jesus. So much so, that with every flashback I wanted the story line to stay there a little bit longer than it did. It is sad to think that the Sermon on the Mount, The Last Supper, and the washing of the disciples? feet will never be seen in that way and with those actors. It is my hope that this movie will lead to the spreading of Gods love and his word to many that would not experience it. As a final word, I am not necessarily concerned with the part that anyone played in Jesus dying on the cross?other than my own.

Me Solomon Grundy

74

Just when you think you get out, they keep sucking you back in…

Solomon: I don’t think it can be “proven” while we’re mortal and living in this physical realm. Which has really been my point all along, and another reason why it’s appropriate to apply such colloquilisms as “matters of faith,” etc.

Could I think of some far-fetched answer for personal proof? Sure…God lifts me up to the heavens and introduces me to his son, Jesus. (Of course, when I came back to tell everyone most would call me nuts!!)

So, short of that, I’ll categorize all such notions as “beliefs” versus “proof.” You’re free, of course, to do as you please…although I believe most classical philosophers wrestled with similar concerns and concurred that issues of the spiritual world by definition fall outside the scope of worldly proof.

75

Oh yeah…and one more thing :)…
I didn’t write in disagreeing with Dark Angel…I think that was Brian. If you’re asking me, then I actually DO disagree with Dark Angel, or at least disagree with the certainty with which he claims to “know” such things.

And if Jesus actually did die for my sins (in a sort of ex post facto kind of way, I guess?), then I appreciate his thoughtfulness, although–had he asked–I would’ve told him to forget the crucifixion and just enjoy himself while here on earth. All this stuff will probably get sorted out up in the cosmos, anyway (not that my petty, silly little sins must mean all that much to whatever higher powers reside up there), and I suppose metaphysically we all get what’s coming to us…

Now can we just all go out and lift and get big???

76

Brian Smith:
Well, I am uneducated in what you are talking about when you say Vatican II. I know what it was I just don’t know what they decided or even the issues they decided on. You were right in saying I am a Protestant and that is why I do not need to know what men decided long ago or even what men will decided in the future. All I need to do is know what is in my heart, what I read, and what the lord directs me to do. By the way are you Catholic?

77

Bosco you sound so interested yet so afraid to get pulled into something that might change you. But like you, I need to go eat my second post workout meal so I can,
GET BIG.
DA

78

Doogie:

“Why didn’t Jesus just snap his fingers and wipe the slate clean?”

It is commonly taught that Jesus died for us, and that He did. Yet, what people glance over is that He died for God as well. God is a just God, if someone does something wrong, they must pay the price. It says in the Bible, “The wages of sin is death.” The reason that we die is because of our sin, we were not created to die! Yet, He who had no sin (Jesus), died in our place.

I’ll try to put it in a short example.
Think of someone who stole a fridge from Wal-Mart. They are in court, standing before the judge. If he was convicted, would it be just for the judge to just say, “Not guilty, you are free, no fine, no jail time, go home kid.” That would be an example of grace. It wouldn’t be JUST because Wal-Mart was ripped off a couple hundred bucks and no one has paid them back! Yet, God has grace and is just. Therefore, if we relate this to God, the judge would say, “I have paid back the fridge price and you are free to go.”

I know this may sound cheesy to some and isn’t a perfect depiction of the reality of God’s grace and justice, yet is can serve as a small example of this great truth.

“The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 3:23

79

Dark Angel writes,
“Well, I am uneducated in what you are talking about when you say Vatican II.”

Vatican II is a major policy statement of the Catholic Church, which among other things, absolved Jews of corporate guilt for the death of Jesus, specifically allowed for the salvation of non-Catholic Christians and allowed that almost all the mass could be performed in the native tongues of the worshipers.

Mel Gibson is a member of a retro-Catholic group that does not believe in Vatican II. Read the quotes of his I have above. He thinks you’re going to hell, but he wants you to see his movie first.

“You were right in saying I am a Protestant and that is why I do not need to know what men decided long ago or even what men will decided in the future.”

What are you “protesting,” good sense? You have know interest in what men decided long ago (ex. Torquemada) or even what men will decide in the future (ex. the Iraqi council)?

“By the way are you Catholic?”

I’m an ex-Unitarian, we’re real wild cards. We think first and ask questions later.

80

Bosco - Maybe you will get lucky. Thank you for responding to my question. A discussion on ?proof? could get very deep and I am sure that neither of us will be changed by our discussion on a forum. In considering my reasons for butting-in on this thread, I hope that you will think of me as an individual who is not merely trying to win an argument, but more of a friend who really ?believes? that he is looking out for your best interest. If you are interested in looking at ?proof? of some kind, please refer to the following reading material:

A ready Defense ? by Josh McDowell
A case for Christ - Lee Strobel (Started as an Atheist)

Me Solomon Grundy