The Passion of the Christ

[TWA Dude]

To say that I am offended that you try to devalue Christ and the Bible with mere charges that either you can't back up or won't examine is an understatement.

I could say likewise.

While I have attempted to put out reasons and facts, you don't even examine them. This discussion has not discussed the points but rather reflects a high school debate where each side just adamantly restates their argument and tries to better the other's score. This is what this has become.

Actually it's been this way since the beginning. You just didn't recognize it. I'll concede that your explanations and Christian theology in general is well-thought out and logical past it's starting point. Sorry that it hasn't convinced me to change my beliefs.

We're going round and round on "one." You refuse to examine what echad means as being in the sense of united rather than singular. So you just mindlessly keep repeating 'it's one G-d,' without even knowing what you're actually saying from the Hebrew.

Lemme help you with this. In Judaism there's G-d. In Christianity there's G-d and the man/diety known as Jesus. You profess the theological need for Jesus whereas Judaism does not. The Hebrew Bible prophesizes the coming of the Messiah. Christianity says Jesus is the Messiah and he's G-d as well. My summary is no doubt incomplete but the debate goes round and round because it all starts with Jesus. I quoted a rabbical source to argue for me and that's all I'm able/willing to do. Sorry.

If there is no evidence for the history of the Old Testament, then it sets up the liberal argument of having to accept everything by faith. However, there are reasons in the archaeological evidence to believe in a literal reading of Biblical history. That conflicts with the cultural post-modern view and so it is rejected and the counter-argument is just to repeat louder that religion cannot be determined by fact, just faith (and one faith is as good as another it would seem since they have no firm basis to discern one from another).

I thought I was clear about this. Archeology does support some of the history in the Hebrew Bible. Does that necessarily make all of it true? If you believe then it does. I'm not arguing the Hebrew Bible here.

I do not find it funny that as a non-Jew I can find fulfillment of God's Word in Christ. This ridicules my religious beliefs without providing any specific constructive criticism.

What constructive criticism could I possibly deliver? I don't think Christians are going to Hell just because they believe Jesus is the Messiah. Nor do I think anybody is going to Hell just because they don't. I guess the biggest thing you've learned from this that you can't get a Jew to convert who doesn't wish to.

I find your religious beliefs don't matter to you much.

That's a nasty thing to say. You already know that I'm not an Orthodox Jew. In fact, I'm violating a Commandment right now by not observing the Sabbath (Oh yeah, the Ten Commandments have been replaced by a New Covenant so I guess I'm off the hook ... NOT). I'm not proud of this but there it is. You want an expert; debate with an Orthodox rabbi. I'm no substitute.

As long as the world view is that they are offended by Christianity (because Christians, at least non-liberal Christians who deal in absolutes -with an absolute Heaven and Hell) they can then equate Christianity with hate-speech, because it condemns some to Hell if they differ from their view. (But doesn't Judaism do the same thing with the wicked?)

Interestingly Judaism doesn't speak much of a Hell. The way I understand it Judaism is far more concerned with our actions during life rather than the nebulous idea of an afterlife. In any case only G-d can condemn the wicked in the End. Enjoy your Day of Rest.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

.
I think it important to the Christians reading this, that they be prepared for persecution in this country, despite the First Amendment guarantees of 'freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof.' When Evangelism becomes more than a subject of scorn, when proselytizing becomes taboo, then a vehicle may be found to stamp out any expression of the basic Gospel message of the Bible as being intolerant. This would equate Christianity with bigotry in the extreme, and saying you're an Evangelical Christian would be no different that identifying yourself as a KKK member, or neo-Nazi, or a racist.

Already happening in Canada. Coming to America next. Sign of the times.

 

[Super 80]

Already happening in Canada.

We're seeing the day when the Western nations are rapidly becoming mixed nationally, like the toes of iron mixed with clay, but what exactly is happening in Canada?

I agree persecution will eventually come to this country as well. I also think it is important to the Christian that to have the likes of some the more virulent Christian-bashers on this board as a microcosm will not only become dominant, but the winning position -does not mean we are losing even though we cannot fight the tide that is turning. While I expect that Christians will be vilified, oppressed, imprisoned and killed -our war is to be won by God, and specifically by the Son on the Day of the Lord that is coming.

If we expect to be "kept from" that hour, that is not what the Bible says. Rather it is for God to "watch over" us in that hour so we remain "steadfast" in our faith in Jesus. Better to suffer the slings and arrows of dissent from the world and gain life than to have their accolades and go to death.

 

[Timebuilder]

Lemme help you with this. In Judaism there's G-d. In Christianity there's G-d and the man/diety known as Jesus.

Same God, bud.

The original reference from Genesis is "Elohim", a plural form, covering the three aspects of the ONE GOD. Jesus is God the Son, wholly God while being Man, too. Jesus is often callled Emanualle, or "God with us." Jesus has always been God the Son, and the aspect of God that speaks to Man throughout the Old Testament, and Jewish Scripture. This is why He was able to cause the temple elders to "marvel" at His understanding of the scriptures they read.

He wrote them.

but what exactly is happening in Canada?

Canada has passed new laws that prevent preaching from God's word on the basis of "hate speech", meaning that you cannot describe what the Bible says is "sinful" behavior, such as homosexuality, incest, etc.

It is important for everyone to understand that many of the same ivy league intellectuals (all liberal democrats) who are on the advisory boards of the leading "gay rights" organizations are the very same individuals that are on the boards of groups like the NAtional Man Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA. These groups have a great deal of political power. Eventually, it will be made 100% legal for minors to choose to engage in any sexual activity they desire, just as they now have a "right" to seek an abortion through a school without parental consent in many places.

This continuing trend is in a story in the news today: people are advancing the idea that students at a certain school have the ability to "choose" the gender that they want to identify with. Don't like being a "boy?" Now you can call yourself a "girl."

I think I want to vomit.

It's only the beginning, indeed.

 

[Chunk]

Back ON TOPIC!

I didn't wade through the pages and pages of arguing. I did, however, see that NAMBLA somehow got into the thread...strange.

I saw the movie tonight and was disappointed. It was well made and gripping, but it focused on the most visceral and frankly, least significant aspects of Christ's life. His ministry, baptism, atonement in the Garden, and resurrection are given only token mentions though they are more significant to us today. It was the suffering in the Garden that made the crucifiction more than just a martyrdom. The resurrection gives us hope of life eternal.

You can tell that Gibson is Catholic. He has a crucifix and suffering fetish. Many men in this world were tortured like Christ, no others sacrificed what he did. This movie did NOT address that atoning sacrifice.

My .02

Chunk

PS---back to the flame war

 

[Super 80]

Chunk,

Not only does this movie display all the Catholic "Stations of the Cross" (five of the twelve stations cannot be found in the Bible) which were developed in the early Roman Catholic Church from A.D. 381-384, but large portions of the Passion that cannot be found in the Gospel accounts are not just artistic liscense, but are graphic depictions of an early nineteenth century book entitled: The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich.

This book was penned by a Catholic nun at the Augustinian Order at Dulmen, Germany. Acquiring it from a closed nunnery, Mel Gibson said: "Amazing images, she supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of." This explains all the demonic scenes in which Satan, as a woman (I actually thought it was a man in the movie) is put into the action, the entire snake scene, the devilish children, the tie between Mary and Jesus (sopping the blood, feeling the stone floor of the Temple, interacting with Pilate's wife, kissing Jesus' feet) and even specific conversation between Mary (always termed 'Mother') and Jesus.

Finally, you have to understand that Mel Gibson as a Catholic is equating the Cross with the Eucharist. This is why certain words are changed, and even why Mel Gibson has Jesus speaking Latin to Pilate. Perhaps the most telling change is how Jesus died. Instead of speaking out with a loud voice, showing his strength when crucifixion is the slow snuffing out of life as the victim is unable to breath, this rendition of Christ is weak and defeated. And instead of saying; "It is finished," Mel Gibson has Jesus saying; "It is accomplished," which sets the stage for the continual Roman Catholic Eucharist where with each Mass, the Son pays the penalty again by the Priest.

There is a world of difference between the Biblical account, no matter which version you wish to use, and the Roman Catholic Church's Stations of the Cross.

 

[skydiverdriver]

I was wondering why mr Surplus didn't answer any of my questions? I thought they were fair and interesting, but you decided to leave the debate right after I asked.

Perhaps you will like this one better. Could you please show me an example of a Protestant (or Reformer if you prefer) version of the Bible that changes the meaning? Please show me the one you think is closest to the truth, and one that changes the text so I can see what you are talking about. Also, I think you mentioned the NWT which I believe is the New World Translation, which was written by Jehovah's Witnesses and does change the text to fit their beliefs. They are considered a cult, and don't count as far as this question is concerned.

Thanks.

 

[Satan]

I felt obligated to stop in and tell you that all the good deeds are not worth it, I'll see ya'll soon

 

[Super 80]

I think you mentioned the NWT which I believe is the New World Translation, which was written by Jehovah's Witnesses and does change the text to fit their beliefs. They are considered a cult, and don't count as far as this question is concerned.

Oh, okay, I was wondering what the NWT was. Yes, the Jehovah Witnesses have heretical teachings within their theology. But that school of thought goes all the way back to the Council at Nicea and Arianism and is nothing new. There have always been heretics that try to take away from the authority and Son-ship of Christ, either by diluting what He said and did by liberal interpretation which discounts the literal, or by diminishing Christ by putting others in His place as our Savior.

 

[surplus1]

I was wondering why mr Surplus didn't answer any of my questions? I thought they were fair and interesting, but you decided to leave the debate right after I asked.

I tried to respond with a generic post "to all" that appears about midway down on page 10 of the thread. It was ignored so I figured that my input was not appreciated by the factions.

Unless I choose to get involved in a peeing contest over whose belief is more correct than whose, there is really nothing to say. I can't or rather won't deal with folks who are non-Jews but set themselves up as experts on Judaism or non-Catholics who obviously know next to nothing about Catholicism, yet can tell everyone what we believe or don't believe. I'm not going to "convert" them and they're not going to "convert" me.

This is not an objective discussion about anything, its a battle between people with different Faiths. That's been going on for 2000 years since Christ, several thousand before His coming, and is not resolved. I certainly can't do it.

I'm a Catholic and I intend to remain a Catholic. No amount of criticism or "thumping" or quotations from the NIV, NASV, NWT, NKJV, RSV or the "Book of Mormon" (whatever that's supposed to be) are going to change my faith. In that respect, I am just like TWA Dude. You all can preach till the cows come home. Whenever you figure out what the differences are between your more than 1000 denominations and cults, then we can talk. Until then, we really don't have much to say to each other that won't result in a quarrel.

I do not want to fight with anyone over his/her faith. Go ahead and believe whatever you want to. I'm happy with what I believe and I hope you're all happy with whatever you believe. When judgement day comes the Lord will figure it out, just as He did the last time He came.

I'm reading because I find the quarrels entertaining. I especially liked the one about the atrocities of what someone called the Roman Church, of which there were undoubtedly many, such as the Crusades and the Inquisition. Errors of men conducted in the name of God.

What I find ironic is that the writer chose to ignore the atrocities associated with his own beliefs. As an example, thousands of these folks who fled Europe to escape the evil Catholics, promptly proceeded to massacre the heathen savages, burn each other at the stake to stamp out witchcraft and persecute each other in one form or another, again, all in the name of God, and with a vengance no less evil than the one they fled.

Religions and the people that run them have all done this at one time or another. The name calling merely changes from savage, to heathen, to heretic, to infidel, to crusader or whatever term justifies the havoc that men reak upon their fellow men in the name of God.

Call me whatever you choose, I don't care to become involved in the verbal equivalent of that.

Perhaps you will like this one better. Could you please show me an example of a Protestant (or Reformer if you prefer) version of the Bible that changes the meaning?

Coming from a Catholic I doubt you would find my examples relevant. I suggest instead that you consult the views of one group of Protestants vs. other groups of Protestants. Here is a link that will take you to a website by proponents of the AKJV. There they will show you some of the Biblical changes/differences that they consider inappropriate.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/

Perhaps that will help you to sort some of it out. There are many links on the site and it is quite informative, from their point of view. Again, this is not a Catholic web site. It is a Protestant web site that pits one of the Protestant versions of the Bible against other Protestant versions.

In answer to your question I do think that the AKJV is very accurate in what it covers. Close to 95% or more. Whenever Protestantism comes up with a single version of the Bible that they can agree among themselves is the correct version, then I will worry about how it compares to the Catholic version. Until then I have no idea which version I should compare to.

Basically, that's why I decided that it would be of no benefit to anyone for me to participate directly in the discussion. I would probably offend someone or wind up being offended myself. I wouldn't mind that if I thought it would make things better, but I doubt that it would.

Regards.

PS. I'm a Christian. I belong to the universal Church founded by Jesus and built on Peter whom He designated the rock that would become the foundation of His Church, and whose successor is a Polish man that lives in Italy in the city of Rome. With all its human failings, I respectfully submit that's way ahead of Jerry Falwell or the 700 Club.