Re: The Passion of Christ

[Maggie Erin]

Re: The Passion of Christ

Having read quite a few of the responses to Mel's film, actually his personal testament of faith regarding the historical Jesus and his brutal end upon the cross that is no different in kind than the testaments of faith by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (all of whom did not write their gospels themselves since they were long dead by the time they were written; hence, their disciples wrote the gospels in their names as they remembered each of the disciples'/apostles' teachings) focused on the last hours in Jesus' life whether one believes in him as Messiah or not. One cannot escape the historical fact that his crucifixion did happen, and the brutal and bloody scenes so graphically shown were true to the degree of bodily damage done to one who was flogged with the metal-studded instruments used by the Romans upon so many of their so-called enemies of Ceasar and the Roman state.

Roadways were lined with those crucified in the name of Roman justice. Jesus, to them, was just another one of them. Nothing more and nothing less.

Even the likes of Albert Schweitzer, a famous scientist, went "In Search for the Historical Jesus" From his research he wrote a book by that title.

Believer or non-believer is not the point of this movie. It was an expression of Mel's faith, intermingling parts from other gospels, namely John, as he chose to depict it.

He paid about 40M of his own money to make the movie despite all his critics, but now they are the ones being "crucified" on their own words as Mel takes about 100M+ to the bank. So far!

As far as cinematoghric violence and bloodshed, it is an expression of what the public has come to expect in these days of actual violence, i. e., Braveheart, D-Day, and the many over-violent games millions of our youth are permitted to play, becoming sociologically and emotionally numb to it. Violence has become a way of life this past decade, a "Decade of Violence and Death" (senseless killings and more).

Bottom line: As one contributor noted, there have been many films made depicting the life of Jesus, and controversy has ranged from whether Jesus should be shown with hair under his arms (movie with Jeffery Hunter as Jesus), The Last Temptation of Christ (a depiction of the earthly, sensitive Jesus who steps outside his mission and includes a love affair with Mary Magdalene), and the stage production "Jesus Christ Super Star" (his life put to musical drama).

In the end I can offer only this quotation from one of William Shakespeare's plays..."Much Ado About Nothing." Soon all this hoop-lah regarding THIS movie, will be history.

Soon the contorversial smoke will clear regarding this movie and move on to some other movies or something else.

Right now there are real tragedies about which we all should be concerned, and those involve terrorists that go around killing innocent people as we in this country not too long ago experienced with The World Trade Center tragedy and the 400+ killed in Spain just yesterday to be an example to the Spanish government for their support of US policies in Arab countries, namely Iraq.

It is these victims and their loved ones for whom we should concentrate our attention, knowing that people throughout the world are living in an ever-present danger so long as terrorism and terrorists take liberty to wholesale killing under the guise of serving Allah.

Controversy over a movie? It isn't worth breath spoken nor words written.

I have seen the aftermath due to The Troubles in Northern Ireland.

Maggie Erin
____________________________________________________

Quote:

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."

John Donne (done)

 

[gauchecritic]

Right now there are real tragedies about which we all should be concerned, and those involve terrorists that go around killing innocent people as we in this country not too long ago experienced with The World Trade Center tragedy and the 400+ killed in Spain just yesterday to be an example to the Spanish government for their support of US policies in Arab countries, namely Iraq.
Maggie Erin

For me the above paragraph is a bigger tragedy. From what I can ascertain at the moment of this post it is still not clear by whom or for what reason the bombings were carried out.

The Spanish intelligence services are undecided but leaning towards an ETA splinter group.

But because the biggest bogeyman at the moment is Al Qaueda then they must be the culprits irregardless of evidence or intelligence.

Oh I forgot they found a van with explosives and a book of Muslim chants.

Rather than defending Al Quaeda or any terrorist group I'm trying to point out that terrorism isn't necessarily perpetrated by shadowy foreign organisations with explosives.

Gauche

 

[gauchecritic]

making use of a double post

I think it was Mab that pointed out that the main and basic aim of terrorism is to provoke response and recognition.

If the public are likely to forget "The Passion" then you will also find that they will forget attrocities such as bombings just as we became innured to the IRA bombings in the 60s 70s and 80s.

For "we" read "the press". Tomorrow's chip papers.

Communications are the key to almost everything. Bombings are a form of communication. If we didn't plaster it all over the media it would become inneffective.

Gauche

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Re: Re: The Passion of Christ

For me the above paragraph is a bigger tragedy. From what I can ascertain at the moment of this post it is still not clear by whom or for what reason the bombings were carried out.

The Spanish intelligence services are undecided but leaning towards an ETA splinter group.

But because the biggest bogeyman at the moment is Al Qaueda then they must be the culprits irregardless of evidence or intelligence.

Oh I forgot they found a van with explosives and a book of Muslim chants.

Rather than defending Al Quaeda or any terrorist group I'm trying to point out that terrorism isn't necessarily perpetrated by shadowy foreign organisations with explosives.

Gauche

An asumption of AQ involvement isn't a very large leap gauche. This isn't the ETA's mo at all, not unless they have gotten hefty contributions and changed totally. They are far more likely to gun down a regional official than blow up a train. Even when they do use bombs it is usually a couple of small ones, one on time delay to get rescue workers.

This is a massive attack and has all the halmarks of an AQ quasi military operation. While an ETA splinter group must certainly be considered, it fits an AQ attack far better in the way it was carried out and above all in its scope.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

In the end I can offer only this quotation from one of William Shakespeare's plays..."Much Ado About Nothing."

'lo, Maggie. I've nothing to contribute on the film or terrorism. Only want to point out to others that your quote is the title of a play (vs. a quote from such). It matters to me that Shakespeare is attributed properly. (This post is not sarcasm.)

regards, Perdita

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: The Passion of Christ

For me the above paragraph is a bigger tragedy. From what I can ascertain at the moment of this post it is still not clear by whom or for what reason the bombings were carried out.

The Spanish intelligence services are undecided but leaning towards an ETA splinter group.

But because the biggest bogeyman at the moment is Al Qaueda then they must be the culprits irregardless of evidence or intelligence.

Oh I forgot they found a van with explosives and a book of Muslim chants.

Rather than defending Al Quaeda or any terrorist group I'm trying to point out that terrorism isn't necessarily perpetrated by shadowy foreign organisations with explosives.

Gauche

It should be added that there is a difference between Arabs, Iraqis, the Middle East, and Islamics. They are not interchangable terms, and also that you can't paint all Arabs or all Arab countries with the same brush. For instance, the US has favorable relations with the Arab Nation of *Saudi Arabia* while having unfavorable relations with other Arab regions.

The tradedy that I see is that most people haven't a clue about the Middle East and don't know Muslim from Islam, let alone any of the rest of it. I'm not innocent here myself. I'm trying to understand, but it's constantly all lumped together, and the administration certainly isn't encouraging greater understanding.

Lots of people think we should just blow up the whole damn desert and that everybody over there lives in caved

 

[kellycummings]

I just read on the news site that the explosives were spainish made and the type normally used by ETA so they are seriously leaning towards them now.

 

[Boota]

One cannot escape the historical fact that his crucifixion did happen, and the brutal and bloody scenes so graphically shown were true to the degree of bodily damage done to one who was flogged with the metal-studded instruments used by the Romans upon so many of their so-called enemies of Ceasar and the Roman state.

Actually, scholars and historians can't even prove that Jesus existed, much less that he was crucified. There is no evidence at all. Granted, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, but it is by no means an historical fact.

 

[Dirty Slut]

Re: Re: Re: The Passion of Christ

Originally posted by Boota
Actually, scholars and historians can't even prove that Jesus existed, much less that he was crucified. There is no evidence at all. Granted, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, but it is by no means an historical fact.

This posting of yours Boota is non-factual. Oh, I'm not calling you a liar, that would presume that you actually investigated your claims before posting them. Because had you investigated, you'd have found that history does indeed document that Jesus existed, and that he was crucified by the then Roman Government. You obviously heard someone that you think very highly of, for whatever reason, make these inane remarks. The Roman Empire kept scrupulous records. As did the Jews under the Roman Empire's rule at that time.

Also, by making the above false statement you have shown where your loyalties, faith, or whatever lie. Not that I care, but it could make you a target in the future if you do care.

DS

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I just read on the news site that the explosives were spainish made and the type normally used by ETA so they are seriously leaning towards them now.

Yes, compressed dynamite, which the ETA favors. Also 5 suspects were arested, three morrocans and two with indian papers. Not at all sure what that portends if anything.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Passion of Christ

This posting of yours Boota is non-factual. Oh, I'm not calling you a liar, that would presume that you actually investigated your claims before posting them. Because had you investigated, you'd have found that history does indeed document that Jesus existed, and that he was crucified by the then Roman Government. You obviously heard someone that you think very highly of, for whatever reason, make these inane remarks. The Roman Empire kept scrupulous records. As did the Jews under the Roman Empire's rule at that time.

Also, by making the above false statement you have shown where your loyalties, faith, or whatever lie. Not that I care, but it could make you a target in the future if you do care.

DS

Nothing to add here except nice to see ya again Ds

-Colly

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Wasn't it the ETA that used a car bomb last year to damage a public official's office (kill him)? A city bus pulled to a stop near the car and many innocent citizens were inadvertently killed and the ETA made a public and formal apology to the families and loved ones of the bus passengers?

Not to say that this justifies their actions, but that they are in fact against harming otherwise uninvolved citizens? I'd always understood that they (ETA) were strictly focused on threatening/killing public figureheads that stood in their way or damaged their cause.

~lucky

 

[Pure]

Dirty Slut said to Boota,


This posting of yours Boota is non-factual. Oh, I'm not calling you a liar, that would presume that you actually investigated your claims before posting them. Because had you investigated, you'd have found that history does indeed document that Jesus existed, and that he was crucified by the then Roman Government. You obviously heard someone that you think very highly of, for whatever reason, make these inane remarks. The Roman Empire kept scrupulous records. As did the Jews under the Roman Empire's rule at that time.

Hi Dirty, nice to see ya!

First let's be precise: we are talking about historical records--secular-- OUTSIDE of Biblical sources, leaving aside, e.g., St. Pauls letters.

The letters, of course are not good evidence anyway, since Paul apparently never crossed paths with Jesus, before the crucificxion. (i.e, He had a vision of the Risen Christ, after the mortal Jesus'(as man's) death.)

As I recall there are a couple passages of Josephus and one in Tacitus. BUT the passages in Josephus may be later interpolations since Josephus was Jewish and the passages are a bit too complimentary to ring true in the eyes of some. Despite your assertion of 'scrupulous records', there is nothing in Pilate's or any Roman's memoirs " this day I had Jesus killed."

HOWEVER. This is not the really key issue. Suppose it's assumed that, 1)there was a Jewish teacher or agitator 2)that got crucified under/by the Romans. And 3) some of his followers claim he rose from the dead and/or they had visions of him; and 4)started a sect or cult that broke away from the Jewish mainstream late in the first century.

That's a thousand miles from anything officially at the foundation of Christianity, from birth, manner(virgin birth) and place, miracles, claims to be God's Son; crucifixion (words said on the cross); descent to the nether regions; rising from the dead on the third day; ascension.

In short EVEN WERE a couple historical basics conceded [points 1), 2) and 3)]-- which Boota is under no extreme pressure to-- you have essentially used faith and your own scripture to build the additional 'facts' you need and claim. In objective terms, this doesn't go far: I'm sure you would NOT base a historical account of Mohammed on what his followers have said about him in the Koran and Hadith.

In terms of this thread; the 'history' in Mels film is quite open to doubt by a secular historian; his is the 'Christ of faith'; as recorded in his second generation followers' accounts. And not even that, since I gather Jesus teaching is pretty much left aside.

Best,

J.

 

[Boota]

Yeah, what Pure said! LOL.

My ideas are not something I heard someone say and just ran off with. I have studied the history of the Bible for over half of my life. I have not once been able to find one credible, undeniable document concerning the existence of Jesus. A great many scholars have spent their lives searching this proof out. Some to prove it, some to disprove it. And the ones I prefer to acknowledge, the ones who just want to know. No agenda, just a search for knowledge.

There are reasonable and credible denials to every claim of proof as to the existence of Jesus. To say that the existence of Jesus is a proven fact is not accurate. I'm not saying there is or isn't. I don't care either way. All I'm saying, is from my experience, I have seen more easily refuted evidence than anything resembling a solid fact.

My personal feeling on the existence of Jesus is that a man named Jesus was a folk hero. After his death he became a legend. There was in fact a Jesus. There were lots of them. Every tenth male was named Jesus. I think that legends all come from somewhere. Even vampires and werewolves have some basis in fact, no matter how diluted.

This is not meant as a challenge to anyone's faith. I was merely stating that the so-called "facts" are highly disputed in the secular world.

 

[Pure]

Here are two books, on the 'evidence' question: The first I know by direct acquaintaince, is pretty critical and thorough.

Skeptical, by a scholar, but not a specialist in the area.

Did Jesus Exist?

G. A. Wells;

====

Seems well balanced and scholarly: somewhat 'pro', good names:

Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence

Robert E. Van Voorst, Robert E. Voorst, Craig A. Evans (Editor), Bruce Chilton (Editor)

==

In case you're wondering why the second seemingly has a longer list, it's because the "Outside the NT" is taken to include writings by early christians and gnostics, i.e., the so called 'gospels' and othe narratives that became non canonical. There are also a handful of refs to Jesus in Jewish writings, so I understand. None are favorable, and all are very terse. In plain fact, at the death of Jesus, hardly anyone in the area had ever heard of him.

The 'secular evidence' question is not meant to 'disprove' anyone's articles of faith, including Dirty Slut's. But the issue of 'acceptable evidence' is tied up with faith. Christians -- among whom I count myself-- frequently make the mistake of thinking that Matthew's account is going to be acceptable evidence to non Christians; that Matthew's agreement with Mark and Luke is rightly considered 'corroboration', and so on.

All of these are 'faith based' positions.

The secular evidence is that the author(s) of Matthew wasn't an apostle, wasn't there in Jesus's physical proximity, and was compiling both stories and sayings (of a person who wrote nothing, and whose disciples wrote nothing, likely because some were illiterate) that were floating about 30-50 years after the likely(possible) period of Jesus' life.

Matthew's agreement with Mark is not, objectively, corroborating evidence, since the simpler hypothesis that Matthew copied Mark's text is widely thought to be plausibe; or vice versa (barely conceivable).

A good parallel, in my mind, of the sort alluded to by Boota, is the case of Troy. Yes there was found such a place. There was a Trojan war. And maybe there was an Agammemnon and Hector, and a fair maid named Helen, abducted. At any rate, there were Greek and Trojan kings. BUT the Iliad story, with its rich detail, the goddess Aphrodite chosen by Helen, becoming her ally; Achilles' near invulnerability, and the dragging of Hector's body, etc. cannot be supported with outside evidence. Other writings may simply repeat the legends without being true corroboration. It's a helluva fine read, but I'm not going to bet the ranch on Achilles being vulnerable only in the heel (though who knows, maybe that's where he got shot--if he existed).

J.

 

[Dirty Slut]

Sorry Pure, but Lucky already warned me that you just love to be arguementative. And since I don't care to argue one way or the other, you are on your own. You see, to my way of thinking the best way to stop an argument is to ingnore it. No one ever wins an arguement. And nobody ever changes anyone elses mind by arguing.

DS

 

[Pure]

Here is the secular historical evidence regarding Jesus for anyone interested.

http://www.webedelic.com/church/jchistt.htm
[conservative Christian website]

[The four or five ancient refs to Jesus:]

Note that even Chadwick, quite favorable and believing, himself, cannot accept the main Josephus reference as untampered with; it's just too much! See the part I bolded. My italics and bolding, pure.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, wrote in about AD 120 (Life of Claudias 25,4) , concerning a large Jewish community in which riots had broken out: "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the City." It has been argued whether this "Chrestus" is a variant or misspelling of "Christus" the Greek spelling of Christ, or speaking of an entirely different person, but most scholars agree that this was probably speaking of Christ.

Josephus, a Jewish historian in about AD 90 (Jewish Antiquities 18,3,3) wrote concerning Christ, 'Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross.......And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

[Chadwich notes:] Some phrases are thought even by Christian scholars to have been added later by over zealous Christians because they are not remarks typical of an unbelieving Jew, but even without those sections this seems an obvious reference to the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

In Jewish Antiquities (18,5,2), Josephus wrote this concerning John the Baptist: "Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God. "

And again in Jewish Antiquities (20,9,1), Josephus wrote this concerning Jesus brother, James: "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others."

Tacitus (The Annals 15,44) said this of Nero, regarding Jesus and Christians: "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus (Christ), from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

There are two versions of the Jewish Talmud, which is a commentary on the Jewish Bible and other customs and historical events; one originating in Jerusalem and the other in Babylonia. In the Babylonian Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin (43A), there is an interesting reference to Jesus.

"It has been taught on the eve of the Passover they hanged Yeshua (Jesus). And an announcer went out in front of him for forty days saying, 'He is going to be stoned because He practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of the Passover."

[The website's owner, "Dr. Chadwick," a Christian, adds as further commentary:]

These quotes are very interesting. Tacitus and Suetonius do not have any reason to mention either Christ or Christianity in their writings. Neither were Christians or seemed favorably disposed toward them, yet they both corroborate both Christ’s existence and the existence of the Christian movement. The fact that Jesus is mentioned by Josephus and in the Babylonian Talmud is remarkable as well. The Talmud quote speaks of sorcery, no doubt the miracles that Jesus performed which were unexplainable from a wordly standpoint.

The writers of the first and second century, obviously, must have seen both Christ and the Christian movement as a large enough cultural epidemic so as to warrant mention in their literature.

When it comes right down to it though it does not matter whether Christ is attested in 5 manuscripts or 5,000. Belief in Christ should not be based on worldly proofs, but on faith. Faith in Christ is not mere intellectual assent to His having existed, but faith in Him that He is who He said that He is, the Son of God come in the flesh, who lived a perfect life of love and died as a sacrifice to save us from the sentence of death each of us individually has earned by sinning against Him and each other. "We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which He has given about His Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in His heart." (1 John 5:9-10) [end Chadwick commentary]

 

[Pure]

Hi Dirty,

Sorry Pure, but Lucky already warned me that you just love to be arguementative. And since I don't care to argue one way or the other, you are on your own. You see, to my way of thinking the best way to stop an argument is to ingnore it. No one ever wins an arguement. And nobody ever changes anyone elses mind by arguing.

DS

Hey I'm glad you were warned, don't wantya in the snares of Satan.

I remind you that you called Boota's statements non factual, and suggested she **naively accepted others' errors. You were indeed gentle and diplomatic, but offered no evidence whatsoever, nor are you responding to this evidence about the lack of historical refs to Jesus.

No one is force to post to a thread or 'argue'. Some, here, and elsewhere, have speech or profession to make [see Dirt Man in the other thread], then they deak out. Usually a person doesn't 'win minds' or spread 'light' if they can't answer the obvious questions of others, but hey that's up to them.

I don't know if minds are changed. Who'd want to do that? Who would there be to discuss things with?!! I for one, learn something sometimes. Quite often in being pushed to back up a statement, look for evidence etc.

Hey threads are for fun. If facts aren't your bag, there's people's threads on my cat's health, or my son's birthday, or huggies. Something for everyone.

to the truth, and have fun!



**Correction: he

 

[Boota]

Pure, I'm not a she. Just a heads up.

 

[Pure]

Gotcha B. It's been a while since we interacted and I knew, iirc. The brain cells keep dying off.

I hope you enjoyed the few classical passages. The Tacitus seems best, but how the heck would ya build a religion with that little information. Pilate is clearly a key figure.

I tend to believe Josephus about John the Baptizer, and suspect the rest. You?

 

[Boota]

Pure, not a problem. I've been mistaken for female online before.

I did enjoy those passages. Thanks for posting them. I have read the G.A. Wells book. I thought it was very well written and researched.

I tend not to outright believe any of the text on Jesus. It is all suspect to me. I just feel that if Jesus were really such a big deal there would have documents written about him along the lines of other historical figures from that time. At the time of his life, not years after his death.

Start a rumor at breakfast and see how big it has grown by lunch. That's how I see Jesus.

 

[Pure]

Fundamentalist Site on NT Historical Reliability.

http://www.shoutingman.com/bible/ntrely/

This has a list of 50 or so 'evidences'. It's quite informative and at very least indicates why some Christians believe there's LOTS of evidence. (As opposed to the couple examples cited above.)

Here is one example of the dozens of points made at the site:

The authors [of the Gospels and other NT docs] died because they professed these accounts

People will die for things they believe to be true and beneficial: power, ideas, leaders

Men do not die to protect a lie they know to be false — you lie to make life easier

 

[Boota]

That's a good point.

The Heavens Gate cult died to follow the Hale-Bopp comet back to their home planet.

The Al Qaeda terrorists of 9/11 died to get their virgins in heaven.

It's not really looking good for that explanation. LOL. Belief does not equate fact. I have no problem buying the idea that someone can totally believe something and die for it. That still doesn't validate their belief as fact, it just means that they REALLY believed it.