AJWatson3 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Originally posted by Jagsbch He came to this world to die. It's a Matrix Reality Baby. His death was designed to set us free from religion and death. he really screwed that one up then, didn't he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfanjoe Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Originally posted by AJWatson3 he really screwed that one up then, didn't he. I think your greatly mistaken AJ! Jesus' sacrifice totally acheived all that it was ment to achieve. His death made it possible for every single person to be made acceptable in God's sight. (As long as they confess Jesus as Lord and believe in there hearts that God raised him from the dead.) Romans 10:9) Therefore, we can all have a personal relationship, as well as eternal life, with the creator of the world as a result of Jesus death on the cross. If you chose not to believe than that is your decision and you'll have to answer before God for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 For all of you that say that Gibson is following the New Testament you should read the analysis that is done by Newsweek.....they discuss how Gibson uses religious writings that not even the Vatican has acknowledged.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Shouldn't the resurrection of Christ be the focus point of the movie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 i'll answer to the "lord of the worms". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Originally posted by skinsfanjoe I think your greatly mistaken AJ! Jesus' sacrifice totally acheived all that it was ment to achieve. His death made it possible for every single person to be made acceptable in God's sight. (As long as they confess Jesus as Lord and believe in there hearts that God raised him from the dead.) Romans 10:9) Let me ask just for fun. Who wrote Romans? Paul wrote Romans, Paul says that you have to accept Jesus, God didn't say that, Jesus didn't say that. So basically, Christianity (baptists and other denominations who's only "catch" is that you accept Christ) is more like Paulianity? Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatFischer37 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Unfortunately, the responses of Mr. Gibson and of many Christian leaders who point at this movie not for its artistic qualities but for rather for its actual factual qualities put out there to the masses a not-so subtle message re-igniting the anti-semetic message that has reappeared its ugly head throughout the world's history over and over again. Not to be overly dramatic about a movie, but Nazi Germany pursuaded its masses through clever and magnicently produced propeganda to get those who might not otherwise be pursuaded to get involved with their nationalistic cause at the time...might Mr. Gibson be doing the same...only he knows, but to those who are the 2% minority in this country...the Jewish Population, it rings a familiar tune. For those who are not Jewish, I can understand your confusion...why get this upset over a movie?. However, I ask that you put yourselfs in the Jewish position looking over at a movie of this nature and see if you can understand the angst of many of us who are not thrilled with this worldwide premiere. Unless you just basically don't care for Jewish people, in which a jewish opinion is simply not welcomed at all with or without this movie premiere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I'm not Jewish anymore, but I did convert when I was 13/14 to Judaism(from Christianity.) My mother still considers herself Jewish and she plans on seeing the film. I think some people are making this subject more difficult because the body of true historical evidence contravenes much of what is in the Bible, but specifically about Pilate, Christ and the Jews. We forget that this is Gibson's version of the GOSPELS, not of a historically objective image of Jesus. The FACT is that the Romans were not always savage, but were pretty brutal in Judaea, partly because they had to be. As stated earlier, crucifixion was a ROMAN punishment. More importantly, Pilate was recalled from Judaea because of stories of his brutality reaching Rome. This does not jibe with the Biblical Pilate who struggles with executing a man who might well lead another revolt against Roman rule. There are other issues as well, that the Pharisees believed in an afterlife and the Sadducees did not(as we conceive it) and thus it makes little sense for the Gospels to present the Pharisees as some counter to Jesus' teachings. That there is no historical record of a King Herod killing male children. That the only written contemporaneous reference to Jesus is actually a forged interpolation in Josephus' account. Also something that must be taken into account is, especially in John, the somewhat favorable view(considering how negative it could have been) of the Romans as an attempt to curry favor with them and the new religion. DIdn't work at first, but that would explain the treatment of Pilate in the Gospels. Other problems come from the Gnostic Gospels, the religious movements of the time(the Essenes/Nazarenes) and the fact that the Gospels were written some time after the crucifixion. Some will say, "but they were still close(except John) to the event" but to that I say, so is the Koran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 DCogan Man, calm down. I can see why some would be concerned, but I think you're taking all of this way too far. The clips I saw didn't show Gibson being insane. Give me a damn break. I know that Jews are almost non-believers anymore in the literal truth of the Torah, but Christians, many of them at least, are not. This is merely a distillation of the Gospels. So if you want to jump on something, jump on the authors of Mark, Luke, John, etc. BTW, being a Jew isn't synonymous with being a liberal, though I think that equation is what triggered so many of Nixon's private little tirades. I find it laughable actually, and then you proceed to do what most liberals do which is want to infringe on the liberties you claim to defend against the right-wing hordes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Another point, more theological this time: How can one man dying, even one of divine origin, absolve others of their sin? It makes no sense, except that it's been around so long. It's as silly as killing an animal or person to absolve a community of its wrongdoing and placing it all on this receptacle. Think about this, you have a man who murdered a bunch of people. He is not convicted of the crime but a good and innocent man is---does that death absolve or redeem the murderer, even if he DOES repent? Better yet, is that justice? That's a blood sacrifice, a primitive idea that somehow stayed alive in some religious traditions but which makes little sense for people who believe in the accountability and responsibility of the individual for their morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Another point, more theological this time: How can one man dying, even one of divine origin, absolve others of their sin? It makes no sense, except that it's been around so long. You don't get it, God sacrificed his one thing to save us, and that was Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atloldskin Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 DCogan, you need to relax a little. As a Christian, I do not view the movie as anti-Semitic. Jesus, himself, was a Jew. I do not hate the Jews or blame them for His death. As a Christian, we believe that His death was pre-ordained by God so He could be resurrected. As I understand it, Gibson's movie is based on the Gospels literal interpretation and other writings at the time. My fervent hope is that it is a powerful movie; one that inspires others to ask and learn about Christ. More to my point. I also finished reading the DaVinci Code. I thought the book was quite good, but the book (which is fiction but is now talked about by many as the gospel truth) doesn;t make the Church look too good but there is no out cry of anti-Christian here?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanskins Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 DCogan! Relax man! If any anti-sematic feelings are conjured after the showing of this film, it wont be because of the relevancy of the film, it will be because of jews like yourslef overreacting and causing a whole load of unnescessary drama. Take this movie for what it is, art, and grow up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Originally posted by canadianfan56 DCogan! Relax man! If any anti-sematic feelings are conjured after the showing of this film, it wont be because of the relevancy of the film, it will be because of jews like yourslef overreacting and causing a whole load of unnescessary drama. Take this movie for what it is, art, and grow up! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Jb Not possible. If God is infinite, then he can infinitely bring beings into existence and have them die and bring them back, infinitely. Actually, by the definition of the God spoken of by many religions, he doesn't have to be quite "infinite" to accomplish this. And since Jesus is said to rise from the dead, then the sacrifice is merely of the flesh. How are all men throughout all time saved by this act? Have not millions of people died for freedom, for virtue or whatever else? They're not attributed divine qualities, of course, but the fact is the idea of blood sacrifice makes no sense. The scapegoat idea is a Jewish idea, so this kind of makes sense, but on a logical and theological level, I don't see how one blood sacrifice atones or redeems or saves. Now I WOULD agree if the sacrifice literally saved the lives of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWB Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 The bottom line is that the question has nothing to do with who was responsible for Christ's death! It has to do with why he died and what we do now! I know that by seeing this movie, your perception of what happened during those hours will change. It is not a pretty scene. He died for us. All of us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfanjoe Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Originally posted by codeorama Let me ask just for fun. Who wrote Romans? Paul wrote Romans, Paul says that you have to accept Jesus, God didn't say that, Jesus didn't say that. So basically, Christianity (baptists and other denominations who's only "catch" is that you accept Christ) is more like Paulianity? Right? Hmmm.. O.K. I'll play along. Yes in the natural realm Paul is believed to have wrote the book of Romans. But 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Also, 2 Peter 1:20 says that "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." So I would argue from these two texts that God is the author of the Bible, not man. Also, You say that Jesus didn't say that you had to accept him. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." John 10:9 " I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Interesting how all these religious scripts were written so long after his death......usually when a religious figure concieves of his basic principles....he writes them....not someone else...hundreds of years after his death...hmmmmmmm......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 In fairness funky, it is John that is written over a 100 years after his death, but the others were within a lifetime of his death, not hundreds of years. However, that doesn't mean edits and revisions did not occur in that time, and I believe that some form of these stories were probably in existence not too long after his death. Problem is, the same can be said for any religious founder. Unlike other historical figures, the founders of religion often seem to have left no trace in the secular historical record. I'd also venture that some records were destroyed to conform with the new religious vision. Interestingly, there IS a figure referenced in a historical document named Apollonius of Tyana who was said to be a miracle worker and all around supernatural being. Not saying he did perform miracles, but one wonders why he makes it in the historical record in several places but Yeshua of Judaea does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troyster Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 You're trying to turn this into a whole different discussion, huh Funky? What a cheap shot. You don't believe in Christianity, we get it. No need to pull that kind of crap, there's no reason to get into that kind of debate because you know neither side can prove what the actual truth is. That's why we both have to have FAITH in our respective religions. Don't stoop to this type of garbage like canadianfan56 did above. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma You don't get it, God sacrificed his one thing to save us, and that was Jesus. well if god exists then he has everything, not one thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Originally posted by AJWatson3 well if god exists then he has everything, not one thing? No doubt... Why the need to sacrafice anything? If god is the creator, and is all powerful, why the need? To prove a point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big z Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 I usually only goto movies that feature lots of action or comedy...... so I didn't really plan on going to see this in the theatre.... but then they were talkin on the tube about how violent it will be....and (sadly I know) that got me MORE interested.... I dunno...maybe I will, maybe I won't..... what's the call on seeing this movie stoned? seriously??? i know,....... i need help..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 I'm surprised at how much attention this thread received, not sure why really. I'm not surprised that it turned into a Christian v Atheist pissing match though. We all need to try to respect each others beliefs (or lack thereof) and try to get along as best we can. None of us can really say for sure what happened, or what waits for us in the afterlife. I will say this, while I was raised Catholic ( I have had difficulty reconciling my faith with my life experiences) I do not believe that we all just climbed out of some primordial soup, and evolved into the beings we are today. Something, perhaps not what we would call God, or Allah created all this. My heart of hearts tells me that there is something more. Honestly, who can really say for sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Drudge is breaking a story that has the New York Times condemning the movie. Naturally, this is what one would expect from a radical far left leaning rag. The NYT endeavors to bash and diminish all religious insitutions whenever the opportunity presents itself. Of course, what really matters iswhat the viewing public thinks and not what some poison pen left-wing nutjob with a sickle to grind decries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.