Anyone one seen The Christ,

[Dirt Man]

Black Snake said, "Question: Why are people getting upset when someone says that the Jews killed Jesus? Have they not been paying attention all their lives in Church?

Jesus was a Jew. Lived and preached in a Jewish community. The only people that were not Jewish were Roman."

Well, that narrows it down, doesn't it.

The Jewish lands were occupied by the Roman army, which killed and crucified hundreds if not thousands of Jews.

Now, you might believe a Jewish elite felt threatened in their accomodations with Rome.

You might believe some Jewish priests were exercized about a Messiah claimant--- though that has happened before and after Jesus and it is not a capital offense to make the claim and be wrong. See the Shabbatai Zevi fellow, 1654

http://www.jhom.com/topics/fish/messiah.html

Even were the Jews in a stew about a Jewish heretic, it would be vastly unpatrotic to hand him over to the Romans. This would be like the Frenchmen in occupied France handing a protestant--or even insane-- Frenchman over to the Nazis.

Far more likely, is that the Romans saw or heard of or were fed stories about a popular agitator (even if the agitator saw himself as non political and unconcerned with Roman occupation). Not wanting to take chances with stability, they executed him (and countless others).

A further consideration is that the Gospel writers were writing at a time when Rome still was dominant. Hence it's extremely unwise to be casting Rome in a bad light, as brutally executing an innocent. That would get a Xtian sect into a lot of trouble. Hence the writers' interest in MINimizing the Roman responsibility for the crucifixion and placing it the only other possible place, the Jews. We know Pilate in fact had no problem calling for (and carrying out) executions of troublesome people.

In sum, it's likely the Jews got a bad rap from the Gospel writers, and certain that they did for a thousand years after, which is why Pope John XXIII addressed the issue of Jewish collective responsibility, and denied it. *And we know Mel disagrees with these and other reformed doctrines from John's Vatican Councils.*

J.

The Hebrews were the chosen people of God, which is what the whole Old Testement clearly shows. The Jews, or Judean's as they are really known, were the ones waiting for the Messiah to come and bring his kingdom down here on earth. These are the people that Jesus ministered to first. So yes, they are partly to blame for Jesus's crusifiction. The Roman Empire was the ruling governing body of most of mankind at that time so they too, are partly to blame for the crusifiction of the Christ. However there were many people on this planet that weren't in Isreal, or even the Roman Empire at that time, yet they too are partly to blame for the Christ's crusifiction, and so is everybody who ever had sinned, or would later sin against God. What most people don't get is that God doesn't judge us by any other standard that God wouldn't live up too. That the word sin comes from shooting arrows, and means to miss the mark. So to say that: "Well I'm surely not as bad as Caligula, or Hitler, or Jeffery Dommer!" just doesn't cut it with God. He laid down the Law with Moses, then amplified it with Christ when Jesus said that just by thinking sinfully you have commited the sin in your heart, and that's the same thing to God than as actually doing it. So you see, in God's eyes we are all sinners, and therefore we are all responcible for Christ's crusifiction. But only God is responcible for his rising up to live after death.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[SlickTony]

It always seemed to me that Jesus must have been wholly human when he was on earth, but I understand that's not what the theologians believe.

I read some things in the Bible to the effect that he must have possessed some thaumaturgic powers that you would not find in a regular human being.

At one time a mob took him to the top of a hill where they were going to throw him down, but he "passed through the crowd and went his way," which indicates to me that he had the ability to turn people's attention away from himself such that he could escape the mob, somewhat in the manner of a wizard in a Barbara Hambly novel...because He knew it was not His time to go.

After His resurrection, He seemed to materialize here and there in a similar fashion, as if he figured that what with all he'd gone through, plus the fact that he was going to undergo transformation before long, he didn't have to be that careful anymore.

What I sort of resent about this whole Passion business is that I see my church community becoming divided along the lines of Who Has Seen The Passion and Who Has Not, with a little of the implication that there's something not quite right about those who have not.

And the sermon we got last night at the Ash Wednesday service? A barenaked plug of the film. The preacher has two kids, one about my son's age and one a couple of years older; presumably there is not a single violent video in the house, and they will not have played Grand Theft Auto even once; I wonder if he'll have taken them to see The Passion.

 

[kellycummings]

I've seen no compelling evidence that Jesus even existed. I used to take it for granted that even if there was nothing divine about him, he was probably a legend based on a real man. The more I have looked into it, the more he looks like Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyan. That's not to say the entirety of his message is bad. I just see it as fiction with a moral.

As far as the movie goes, I will probably see it after the hype dies down a bit. And I'll judge it as a good or bad movie, not a religious experience. To me, all these people claiming that seeing this movie is akin to that, are really cheapening the term 'religious experience'.

\

There is a lot of evidence that Jesus really did exist. The Bible isn't the only book that mentions Him, merely the most famous one. He is mentioned in a few other things and his family is mentioned a few times. That in no way means he was God incarnate. That is a matter of faith, but I don't think there are many arguments anymore about whether or not He really existed.
Of course, some people who don't believe in Him tend to dismiss Him entirely and that is their choice and their belief. It's not mine but I try not to judge.
Also, all this bullshit about the jews killing Christ. I don't personally believe it but so what if they did? They aren't alive anymore. They haven't been for 2000 years. The jews alive today had nothing to do with it so it makes no sense to blame them for anything.
Christianity gets a bad name because of the zealots. The same goes for Islam and Judaism. It's too bad that people can't follow the faith that they proclaim to defend.

 

[English Lady]

Dirt Man..thank you..you have opened my eyes several times on this thread and i admire you're depth of knowledge!


Ok folks...Jesus was a man AND God. This is why he managed to do the miracle things. Miracles were performed for Jesus' audience. They were looking for their Messiah and he was basically putting up a flashing neon light over his head with the words "Behold I am your Messiah" by doing the miracles.


After his death of course he's going to be doing more miraculous stuff. Hell He was meant to have risen from the dead....he was going to have to appear in many places and in dramatic style to persuade anyone of that doozy!


I can see where you're coming from Slick tony but this is a MAJOR film how often do we Christians get that opportunity to outreach? We don't. Why not make everything of it you can. Wether it be good,wether it be bad it has got Jesus into the media and the thoughts of nigh on everyone. I say Amen to that!

 

[NoJo]

To be honest, neither do I. Jesue did the miracles for the Jews of that time to complete the prophesy of his coming as their Messiah. The miracles were done for the purpose of identifying himself as the true Christ, the embodyment of God. The Hebrews, the very chosen of God, have always required miracles from God. It is just their way. And these miracles of Jesus did turn many Jews of that time into acknowledging Jesus as God incarnet. So they weren't completely wasted by any means.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

I think it's dangerous for you to try to "prove" your beliefs with sweeping statements like this. It's provocative and shows little understanding and tolerance of other people; and it leads eventually to discord and hatred.

Also, remember that being the Messiah is not the same as being the embodiment of God. That's a bad confusion to make.

Moses worked miracles too, but nobody went around calling him God incarnate. Judasim and Islam differ from Christianity in a significant way: To a Jew or a Muslim, ascribing divinity to any human being is blasphemy. Mohammed called Jesus a prophet.

 

[Dirt Man]

I think it's dangerous for you to try to "prove" your beliefs with sweeping statements like this. It's provocative and shows little understanding and tolerance of other people; and it leads eventually to discord and hatred.

And exactly what is so surprising about christians being persecuted for their convictions? We are allowed our opinions as much as you are allowed yours, or they theirs. I probably know more about the Hebrew, and Muslim faith than most people here. LOL Living dangerously is hardly something new to me. I should have died 7 times already that I know of, and one of those times was considered legally dead for a minute or two. So that cat won't sell here, Joe. I don't fear death, I know I'm saved. As for others I have done nothing here to prove, or provoke anything. You saying that I did doesn't make it so. I'm merely stating my opinion like everyone else, and that is what I believe was asked for in this thread.

Also, remember that being the Messiah is not the same as being the embodiment of God. That's a bad confusion to make.

This is actually a lie, at least in Jesus's case it is. But again that is a matter of faith, mine, not yours. Faith is something I don't have to prove to you, or anyone else on this planet.

Moses worked miracles too, but nobody went around calling him God incarnate. Judasim and Islam differ from Christianity in a significant way: To a Jew or a Muslim, ascribing divinity to any human being is blasphemy. Mohammed called Jesus a prophet.

This shows how little you really know about these three faiths. All of which know of the faith of Abraham, and consider him the father of their faiths in God. All three have the same Old Testament up to, and Including the life of Abraham. Two have all of the Old Testament. But only one has the New Testament. As for Mohammed calling Jesus a prophet, hell, even the religious leaders of that time refused to call the carpenter/Rabbi from Nasareth known as Jesus anything more than a possible prophet because if they admitted that Jesus was God, the very messiah that they were waiting for they would have lost what little power, and wealth they'd garnered already. Because as God he owned the Temple. They'd have lost all of the income from selling all those unblemished animals for sacrifice. Animals that they alone were allowed to eat as part of their right, and payment as priests of the holiest of holies. As for Moses, he was the first annointed by God to lead God's people, and out of bondage at that. Moses was the representation of the Messiah that would come to save the Hebrews much later in history, and it was God who performed those miracles, not Moses. Moses couldn't pull a rabbit out of a hat without God. What Moses represented therefore was the only communication's link between man, and God's miracles. And Joe, it isn't blasphemy if the person really is God.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Dirt Man]

Dirt Man..thank you..you have opened my eyes several times on this thread and i admire you're depth of knowledge!

I am but the messenger, praise him who has blessed me instead.

Your Servant in Christ
Dirt Man

 

[English Lady]

Dirt Man I have He said to thank the messenger whilst I was at it

 

[NoJo]

There is a lot of evidence that Jesus really did exist.

I don't know what you're comparing it to, when you say "a lot".

Historians date the Gospels themsleves sometime between 60 C.E. and 150 C.E. The destruction of the Temple occured in 70 AD.

It's quite possible that no facts about Jesus were written down until 60 C.E., but instead were passed down orally.

The main evidence for the existence of Jesus are the Gospels themselves.

I can understand that doubt and scepticism regarding the evidence for the existence of Jesus may be an uncomfortable position for a Christian to hold.

Which is why I'm personally doubtful and sceptical of the arguments that certain Christian historical scholars put forward -- I can't help thinking they're trying to prove a case, rather than discover the facts.

For an interesting viewpoint, there's a Jewish historical scholar who is convinced of the existence of Jesus. He describes his life and times in the context of what was happening to the people in Judea then. It's fascinating stuff, and brings that period to life, even if you don't buy the whole argument.

 

[Guest]

 

[Svenskaflicka]

"Sins must be paid in blood in order for God to forgive them"???

Yet another reason NOT to christian. No blood-thirsty god for me, thank you very much.

 

[Guest]

 

[English Lady]

SubJoe..it's a long time ago since my RE days but i remember learning then that there was more evidence(and not just the Gospels) that Jesus exsisted than Say Julius Ceasar.


Svenskaflicka....you miss the point...God didn't want any of this in the first place...he put Man and woman in paradise...Man and woman buggered up right royally (with help from Satan) and God had to come up with someway of removing mans sins so he wouldn't be forever sperated form his God...hence the lamb thing.


God isn't bloodthirsty...He doesn't need bathing in blood but he's 100% perfect and we're well incredibly grubby..."washing" in the blood of a pure animal (probably like a good soak in fairy washing up liquid) means we ocme out squeaky clean and can get close to our Creator. God was not happy with the blood fix so he sent Jesus.....total stain remover to PERMENANTLY cleanse us (Making us wipe downable I guess*L*) so all this blood malarky would be done with.

 

[Guest]

 

[Pure]

Thanks Rhino.
That is an excellent review, very articulate, and echoes the reservations of other believers. (I haven't yet seen it; I'm reluctant to feed the beast.) I'm also glad to see you have a 'balanced' personality--lots of kindness-- with not such a cruel streak and fascination as some 'believers' have.

The implicit "message" of Mel's movie would seem to be how gory and cruel Jesus tormenters were and how (supposedly) his skin was completely torn up, head to toe, and flesh reduced to the look of hamburger.

I suppose this is to dramatize how sinful 'men' are, and what punishment we all deserve. As you say, there's good reason to think that that's just a part of the Christian message, which has to do with "good news" i seem to recall. (sarcasm). In the Gospel of Matthew, in English, I make it that there are about 21,000 words, of which maybe 500 deal with the passion. That's maybe 3% of the total. You wonder why Matt bothered with the other 20,000 words regarding teachings, events, etc???

One review counted the strokes of the wooden sticks, whips, and steel tipped gizmos---sometimes in the 100s, sometimes in slow motion-- to keep from getting sick to stomach.

By the way, is it true that at one point, one sees Jewish kids 'morphing' into little goblins or satans.?? Is it true there's some kinda 'satan' bug/worm that comes out of someone's nose?

The more I think of it, the more I think the movie will resemble "Payback" and that M has a real weird fascination with violence connected to his religiosity. If you remember Payback, the 'hero' Porter is incredibly brutalized, beaten, etc., and a couple toes cut off, before his final triumph. Is this a kind of archetypal scene for Mel, with himself as Christ?

 

[Guest]

 

[Pure]

Hey Dirt Man,

Can you help? I can't decide, as a gift to English Lady, whether the 1 7/8" in nail or the 2 5/8" in nail is more appropriate:

[official site]
http://www.sharethepassionofthechrist.com/jewelry.asp#Nail

The “Nail” pendants come in two sizes and feature Isaiah 53:5 inscribed on the side. The 20" cord has a Nail pendant that is
1 7/8" in length, and the 24" cord has a Nail pendant that is 2 5/8" in length.


Nail 20" Pendant
leather/pewter
$12.99
SPCN 510-327-7964

Nail 24" Pendant
leather/pewter
$16.99
SPCN 510-327-7972

 

[Pure]

Hi rhinofriend,

Potayto, potahto:

Pure said, ".... As you say, there's good reason to think that that's [suffering and crucifixion] just a part of the Christian message, which have to do with "good news" i seem to recall. (sarcasm). "

Rhino: <<< I don't think that is quite what i said..or MEANT to say. I just felt the EMPHASIS was TOO skewed.

I suggested disproportionate emphasis, citing Matt. You say the emphasis is 'too skewed'.

Wanna quibble?



Thanks again for the great review!!

 

[Boota]

\

There is a lot of evidence that Jesus really did exist. The Bible isn't the only book that mentions Him, merely the most famous one. He is mentioned in a few other things and his family is mentioned a few times. That in no way means he was God incarnate. That is a matter of faith, but I don't think there are many arguments anymore about whether or not He really existed.
Of course, some people who don't believe in Him tend to dismiss Him entirely and that is their choice and their belief. It's not mine but I try not to judge.
Also, all this bullshit about the jews killing Christ. I don't personally believe it but so what if they did? They aren't alive anymore. They haven't been for 2000 years. The jews alive today had nothing to do with it so it makes no sense to blame them for anything.
Christianity gets a bad name because of the zealots. The same goes for Islam and Judaism. It's too bad that people can't follow the faith that they proclaim to defend.

I used to think that it was a foregone conclusion that Jesus existed. But there are many, many pieces of evidence that leads me to believe that he likely did not. And if he did, it is not as the son of any god. I think that Jesus may have been a thorn in the sides of the Romans and the Jews alike and in turn became a folk hero of a sort. Most likely after the fact, since there are no writings about him, biblical or otherwise, from his time or written by anyone shown to be a contemporary of Jesus. (Of course, 'Jesus' did exist. It was a very common name at the time. A lot of Jesus's existed.) The one the Christian apologists always point to is Josephus. They say that he was a contemporary of Jesus, but he couldn't have been. Josephus wasn't even born until seven years after the crucifixion was to have taken place. Josephus was born in 37 CE and the crucifixion would have taken place in 30 CE. However, Josephus's writings on Jesus weren't until something like 93 CE. That's plenty of time to take a story and make it a legend.

I agree with Sub Joe on this. Many of these Christian historical scholars seem to be trying to prove their case, regardless of any facts. If something doesn't jibe with what they WANT to find out, they discard and discredit it. It bothers me when some of them use science to try to prove their theories, but if science proves them to be wrong, they decry that same science as invalid. Personally, I'm agnostic. I have no vested interest either way as to what is true or what isn't. I would just prefer to know. Belief does not equate fact. I'm not about to live my life according to some archaic set of rules and writings. Especially when their origin is so dubious, and they make so little sense to me. I've studied the Bible and it's origins without jamming everything through the prism of faith. Without that faith it is too easy to see the holes.

I'm not a religious bigot, even though I don't believe in any religion. I have friends from several different faiths and we all get along great because we realize that there is more to a person than which invisible man they choose to worship. ( A Jew, a Muslim, and a heathen walk into a bar...) It just never comes up. We know that no one is going to convince anyone of anything other than that which they already think, and we're cool with that. It's just not important.

Kelly, I agree with you too, about the zealots. It's a sad fact that most religions are recognized by people outside of their number by the most unworthy of it's membership, simply because they are the loudest. Non-christians often see only the fringe groups, like the ones who protest the funerals of gay men who die of AIDS and the ones who kill abortion doctors. Non-muslims see nothing but the terrorist organizations. I've never understood anti-semitism. Jews don't bother anyone, do they? I've never had a Jew wake me up by pounding on my door at seven am on a Saturday morning to get me to come to the synagogue. I like Jews. They don't recruit.

 

[NoJo]

Jesus in Fiction

I read a weird story called "Behold The Man" by Michael Moorcock, a science fiction writer at the time. The story: Biblical scholar obsessed with Christ's death travels back in time to 32 A.D, to find that Jesus... well, I won't spoil the story, it's schockingly blasphemous... but anyhow, he finds that Jesus is let's, say, not around...

So the guy realizes that he himself has to "play the part" of Jesus. He travels around, with a resigned expression, fulfilling the scriptures, becauses he knows what's coming to him.

It's a very clever story, and extremely unlikeley that anyone would dare to make a film of it. Morrcock got a lot of flak for it.


In the early '70's, Britains foremost TV playwright Dennis Potter (Pennies from Heaven), managed to get his play "Son of Man" aired. He was very heavily criticised by the usually very tolerant Church of England for his portrayal of Christ as an "ordinary" man, whose relationship with Mary Magdelene was portrayed as sexual.

The Italian Roman Catholic Church and atheist Marxists were united in their criticism of Pasolini's 1964 film "The Gospel According to St Matthew".

Pasolini, a homosexual, made a reverent and incredibly powerful film. He almost turned the Gospel into a documentary. He rejected a lot of excessive iconography, and shot the film with a hand-held camera. He made it in Calabria in Sicily, and used the local population instead of actors.

I suggest anyone intending to see Mel's film get this out of the video library first.

And then of course, we have Monty Python...

I suppose the only thing all these have in common is that they all caused an outcry among certain elements of the population. It looks like Mel can at least claim to have managed that too.

 

[Guest]

Re: Jesus in Fiction

Joe, I love blasphemy! Thanks for the Moorcock review. Love Potter too, would love to see his play. I watch Pasolini's film each year at Easter time, it's a poem, a jewel. P.

 

[kellycummings]

Kelly, I agree with you too, about the zealots. It's a sad fact that most religions are recognized by people outside of their number by the most unworthy of it's membership, simply because they are the loudest. Non-christians often see only the fringe groups, like the ones who protest the funerals of gay men who die of AIDS and the ones who kill abortion doctors. Non-muslims see nothing but the terrorist organizations. I've never understood anti-semitism. Jews don't bother anyone, do they? I've never had a Jew wake me up by pounding on my door at seven am on a Saturday morning to get me to come to the synagogue. I like Jews. They don't recruit. [/B]

There are a few radical Jewish groups but they are few and far between. You are right, they are one of the few religions that don't go out trying to recruit people. That can be looked at as both good or bad, depending your view. Some would say that recruiting is good because you are trying to save people while others will say that you are merely forces your beliefs on those who disagree. I try to live my life and allow others to do the same. Yes, I will speak my mind now and then but I don't hold it against anyone who disagrees with me.
One thing I've never understood about the three main religions is that they all worship the same God. They have different beliefs in terms of saviors, prophets, etc. but God is constant. Why fight? If we are all believing in basically the same thing then what's the problem? So I go to church on Sunday instead of Temple on Saturday. So what if I eat pork. So I wear a cross instead of a star, so I read the Bible instead of the Koran. Big deal. I really believe that if people were left on their own then we'd all get along better. I think it is the fault of the organized churches. I don't do what the Pope says, I do what I believe.
That probably sounds naive and maybe it is but I like to think that people are better than they appear.

 

[Boota]

That doesn't sound naive. It just sounds like hope for how things should be.

 

[Pure]

hey rhino,

is it true that there's a scene of Mary licking Jesus' blood from off his feet?

is it true Pilate's wife brings out a bolt of cloth and uses it (with Mary?) to soak up J C's blood?


(if so...) it seems 'ole Mel did a little embellishing

best,

J.

 

[SlickTony]

I remember that Moorcock story! I read it ages and ages ago, as a teenager. I'd almost forgotten it. I remember being rather repelled and disturbed by it, but my thinking was much more conventional then.