NationStates Jolt Archive

I do not know about you but I loved the Passion. It was a great movie and very historiclly accurate. I do not think that it is pro nazi or it sucks like some of it's critics charge it to be. Fell free to state your opinon because after all that is what this forum is for.

I thought it was alright..

And could I ask how you know it to be historically accurate?

Expect an NSer by the name of 'Japacia' to come in here and bash The Passion

It was a great movie. People complain about the rating, but it WOULD have been R in real life...probably worse really. People who aren't Christians or something along that line don't see what was so great about it. I'm not trying to be stereotypical or anything. People bash it b/c they've never read the Bible or they're atheist or something. Everyone's entitled to their religion or opinions. :wink:

it threw into effect the significance of what christ did for us that day. most of the time, he looks all peacefull pictures. but he wasn't. according to the bible, what was in the Passion is an understatement of what really went on.

it threw into effect the significance of what christ did for us that day. most of the time, he looks all peacefull pictures. but he wasn't. according to the bible, what was in the Passion is an understatement of what really went on.

srry 4 the double posting

It was a great movie. People complain about the rating, but it WOULD have been R in real life...probably worse really. People who aren't Christians or something along that line don't see what was so great about it. I'm not trying to be stereotypical or anything. People bash it b/c they've never read the Bible or they're atheist or something. Everyone's entitled to their religion or opinions. :wink:

Actually, I "bash" it because of it was a horribly made, heavy-handed movie. I haven't seen such a wanton abuse of slow motion since Mission Impossible 2 where they made a half hour's worth of story last for two and a half. I also disagree with the wanton violence and the portrayal of Jesus as a "superhuman," capable of enduring more physical punishment than any other mortal. That attacks the very heart of the Christian faith, that Jesus was a mortal man. Furthermore, I was disturbed by Mel choosing to rewrite the Bible to give Satan a cameo. Finally, I am bothered by the fact that Mel is making so much money on the pain of Jesus.

While the Cruicifixtion is an important aspect of the Bible and the story of Jesus, it is in no way, shape or form the whole of his message and to dwell on it in perverse detail like The Passion did and reduce even that small part of the message of Jesus to the level of a Friday the 13th slasher flick extends the idea that people only come to the Church out of guilt or fear, neither of which are solid reasons to embrace a faith.

So it's more than just atheists or non-Christians who have problems with it. There are a few of us Christians who do as well.

Nice triple post there. . .anyway.

I though the Passion was well shot, but it did nothing for me. I did not have a glorious conversion or an "experience" I just watched the movie. Athough I do have to say that if anyone lost that much blood, they would be dead. But thats just me criticising the movie

Yes but christ was the son of god therefore he is not human. Also what was stated before there were some stuff the romans did to shrist that needed to be cut out during his crusifiction. I can admit I am a devote catholic so what. I am proude of my faith and I like this movie. That is just my opinon.

Yes but christ was the son of god therefore he is not human. Also what was stated before there were some stuff the romans did to shrist that needed to be cut out during his crusifiction. I can admit I am a devote catholic so what. I am proude of my faith and I like this movie. That is just my opinon.

One of the fundamental tennants of Christianity is that Christ is indeed human. Otherwise what's the point?

I didnt like the book so I didnt bother to see it.


(My dad said that to one of his Christian friends. My dad is Catholic and was joking when he said it, but the guy blew up on him and started yelling. I thought it was pretty funny.
That is why I never saw it though)

I liked the movie. Most of the complains leveled upon it were unfair, although I could see certainly why some people wouldn't like it for some reasons, but some are just excuses to bash it, IMO, especially the Anti-Semetic charge.

I didnt like the book so I didnt bother to see it.


As usual, the book is better than the movie.

Yes but christ was the son of god therefore he is not human. Also what was stated before there were some stuff the romans did to shrist that needed to be cut out during his crusifiction. I can admit I am a devote catholic so what. I am proude of my faith and I like this movie. That is just my opinon.
Isint he refered to as the "Son of Man" more times than the "Son of God" in the bible?

It was okay, although they had some innaccuracies (Mary Magdelene is not the prostitute that Jesus saved, and at no point in the Gospels is the link ever made). The violence was effective at the beginning of convincing just how monumental Jesus' suffering, but after a while, it got a bit tedious (how many times does he have to fall down).

Could someone explain to me why i would want to see a man beaten for two hours when it might not even be fully true? thats why i havent seen it...

Isint he refered to as the "Son of Man" more times than the "Son of God" in the bible?

that's just to show he is both human and divine at the same time

Yes there were some inaccuracy's to the film but you can't always have a film 100%. Mel did his best to get it right so I give him credit for that.
Tag

I don't care if it was accurate or not. The movie sucked. It was boring as hell. No plot. Just non-stop torture.

The way Jesus was being tortured was a bit entertaining, but otherwise, the movie sucked.

Expect an NSer by the name of 'Japacia' to come in here and bash The Passion

My prediction has been justified

I don't care if it was accurate or not. The movie sucked. It was boring as hell. No plot. Just non-stop torture

not commenting on any of the potential technical inaccuracies or anything else that sparks off controversy all I would say is that watching the movie really made me re-evaluate my life and my attitudes. I know there's alot in my life that I need to change but with God's help I can do that.
I was speechless after the film and I think the socalled "excessive" violence was probably a huge under-representation of how Jesus would really have been treated.
I realise that this isn't an opinion shared by everyone and I respect that, but that's how I feel about it.

Expect an NSer by the name of 'Japacia' to come in here and bash The Passion

My prediction has been justified

I don't care if it was accurate or not. The movie sucked. It was boring as hell. No plot. Just non-stop torture

Sorry, but I just couln't resist after seeing your post. You know me so well. :wink: Or you just saw the topic that I made bashing The Passion. Either way, glad I can have my message put out there.

The way Jesus was being tortured was a bit entertaining, but otherwise, the movie sucked.

most Jewish movie-critics bash this movie...I wonder why

The way Jesus was being tortured was a bit entertaining, but otherwise, the movie sucked.

most Jewish movie-critics bash this movie...I wonder why

It's been criticized by plenty of Christians, too.

I have yet to see it. Once I find someone to steal it off the Internet, I will. I don't intend to help pay for Gibson's church.

It's been criticized by plenty of Christians, too.
Thats what the Jews say

It's been criticized by plenty of Christians, too.
Thats what the Jews say

Yes, well, at least one I know for sure.

Damn, some people can be plain ignorant. The whole controversy of this movie is BECAUSE of people claiming that the Jews tortured and enjoyed the torture of Christ. If people would get a life and realize that not only was it the fault of many a people, but that even if it was the Jews, it was the Jews of 2004 years ago, not of today. I saw the movie, and to be honest, I thought it was a bad rip off of The Lord Of The Rings with an anti-Semitic twist to it. If you were more knowledgeable with other religions, you would know that the Jews wear a thing called "Tefilin" when they pray on weekday mornings, however this is a modern day tradition, and back in the times of Jesus Christ, the Jews did not wear Tefilin. In the movie, Jews are wearing Tefilin and prayer shawls just to make sure everyone knows it's the Jews, not anybody else, who is trying to torture Jesus. That's why you have the compassionate Romans, who in real life weren't so compassionate, trying to negotiate with the Jews to save Jesus, and the bloodthirsty Jewish mob freeing a murderer instead of Christ so that he would be killed. People really should do some analysis before they start making stupid remarks.

Yes, well, at least one I know for sure.

but do those christians go to church?

Two things:

1) we already knew what was going to happen. no big suprises.

2) it's a snuff film, and if I wanted to see that sort of stuff I'd download Kazaa.

Yes, well, at least one I know for sure.

but do those christians go to church?

I was referring to the comment about the Jews, not the Christians.

Could someone explain to me why i would want to see a man beaten for two hours when it might not even be fully true? thats why i havent seen it...

When you get done explaining that, perhaps you could shed light then on why people go see two and half hours of fictive cannibalism [e.g. Hannibal] or hideously unreal blood fountains [Kill Bill]...you get my point. Whether or not it was true has little to do with its appeal...and as for the violence, well it's hardly the worst out there.

You spelt Christ wrong on the first post. . .just so you know.

however this is a modern day tradition, and back in the times of Jesus Christ, the Jews did not wear Tefilin. In the movie, Jews are wearing Tefilin and prayer shawls just to make sure everyone knows it's the Jews, not anybody else, who is trying to torture Jesus. That's why you have the compassionate Romans, who in real life weren't so compassionate, trying to negotiate with the Jews to save Jesus, and the bloodthirsty Jewish mob freeing a murderer instead of Christ so that he would be killed. People really should do some analysis before they start making stupid remarks.

Indeed, starting with you. First of all, does anyone really know what Jerusalem fashion du jour was at the time? No, but we know from the Talmud, that they had to wear the law on their foreheads and right arms and that they were to cover their head before God...beyond that, it gets fuzzy. Using therefore the Tefilin is not a big deal. As for "making sure we knew it as the Jews" well, yeah, that's IN THE BOOK. If you don't like it, too bad, God didn't ask your opinion when He wrote the Bible, small wonder then, that Gibson didn't consult you first either.

"compassionate Romans" are you off your rocker?!? Yes the brutes who senselessly beat Jesus such that even the "bloodthirsty Jewish mob" turned away in anguish (at the courtyard) brings many words to mind..."compassionate" however, is not one of them.

spelt

You spelled spelled wrong.

First of all, does anyone really know what Jerusalem fashion du jour was at the time? No, but we know from the Talmud, that they had to wear the law on their foreheads and right arms and that they were to cover their head before God

Actually, it's unclear when that particular custom (head covering) really came about, not to mention how rigorously it was observed. Also keep in mind that the Talmud was codified around 300 CE.

As for "making sure we knew it as the Jews" well, yeah, that's IN THE BOOK.

But so are other things that Gibson didn't include which would have given a more complex (and balanced) understanding of the non-Christian Jews. Such as the points in the New Testament where the Pharisees save Jesus' life (Luke 13:31), or when the leader of the Pharisees saves the Apostles from execution by the High Priest (Acts 5:33-40).

Gibson also could have given more historical context, such as explaining the rivalry and disagreements between the various Jewish sects (particularly the Pharisees and Saducees), as well as that the Jews were under ROMAN occupation, and that Pilate gave THEM orders, not vice-versa.

If you don't like it, too bad, God didn't ask your opinion when He wrote the Bible, small wonder then, that Gibson didn't consult you first either.

Get off your high horse. The movie is not "Biblical". Yes, Gibson took parts of the Bible, but there are many places where he added his own or others' details to them (such as the Temple Guards dropping Jesus off a bridge- feel free to find me that verse). There are also many other parts, pertinent to the story, that he simply left out. The Passion is utterly devoid of context, because people are "expected" to come into the theater knowing the entire backstory. But Gibson doesn't even accurately portray the narrative!

Face it; the Passion is a stew, with one parts Bible, but plenty of other parts, as well.

"compassionate Romans" are you off your rocker?!? Yes the brutes who senselessly beat Jesus such that even the "bloodthirsty Jewish mob" turned away in anguish (at the courtyard) brings many words to mind..."compassionate" however, is not one of them.

Everyone has their own focus. I'm sure when I see it my attention will be at how the Jews are portrayed. For many Christians, it will probably be that whole Jesus on the Cross bit.

Damn, some people can be plain ignorant. The whole controversy of this movie is BECAUSE of people claiming that the Jews tortured and enjoyed the torture of Christ. If people would get a life and realize that not only was it the fault of many a people, but that even if it was the Jews, it was the Jews of 2004 years ago, not of today. I saw the movie, and to be honest, I thought it was a bad rip off of The Lord Of The Rings with an anti-Semitic twist to it. If you were more knowledgeable with other religions, you would know that the Jews wear a thing called "Tefilin" when they pray on weekday mornings, however this is a modern day tradition, and back in the times of Jesus Christ, the Jews did not wear Tefilin. In the movie, Jews are wearing Tefilin and prayer shawls just to make sure everyone knows it's the Jews, not anybody else, who is trying to torture Jesus. That's why you have the compassionate Romans, who in real life weren't so compassionate, trying to negotiate with the Jews to save Jesus, and the bloodthirsty Jewish mob freeing a murderer instead of Christ so that he would be killed. People really should do some analysis before they start making stupid remarks.

No offence but you sound like a overopinonated moron in this post. I suggest you edit it. First of all there were some jews that took part in christ death. For example some of the brandwashed peasent mob munipulated by the Jewish elite. The Jewish elite also chose Barobius to live rather then Christ because they were afriad the peasents would revolt aganst them. Also the romans were not potrayed as compassionate and if anything sadistic. It showed how the Romans injoying crusifying, beating and whiping christ. If you find that compassionate you are a moasocist. Also it has positive potrayal of jews for example when simon (a Jew) beats back the mob and helps christ carry his cross. So don't give me that oh it's lord of the rings with anti-semitism. And besides christ was a jew and I do not believe he would have approved of the Holocost, the crusades or the incusition.

really?

Personally, I liked The Passion of the Christ

historically accurate? excuse me, but my latin teacher saw the movie and said that they pronounced the latin wrong. and in the eastern half of the empire, didn't they speak greek?

What is so wrong with the passion and how is it anti-simetic?

What is so wrong with the passion and how is it anti-simetic?

historically accurate? excuse me, but my latin teacher saw the movie and said that they pronounced the latin wrong. and in the eastern half of the empire, didn't they speak greek?

So?

You try speaking latin perfectly.

I do not know about you but I loved the Passion. It was a great movie

Fine, your opinion.

and very historiclly accurate.

No it isn't.

And I can prove it if you want.
:wink:

I do not think that it is pro nazi or it sucks like some of it's critics charge it to be. Fell free to state your opinon because after all that is what this forum is for.
I don't think it is pro-Nazi or anti-semitic either, and I don't think it justified the hype it got.

historically accurate? excuse me, but my latin teacher saw the movie and said that they pronounced the latin wrong. and in the eastern half of the empire, didn't they speak greek?

So?

You try speaking latin perfectly.

It is doubtful any one can. IIRC there is still controvesy on how to pronounce "Veni, Vidi, Vici."

Speaking Latin accurately is like speaking ancient Sumerian accurately.

dp

tp

I do not know about you but I loved the Passion. It was a great movie

Fine, your opinion.

and very historiclly accurate.

No it isn't.

And I can prove it if you want.
:wink:

The fact is, NEITHER of you existed in that time period so, NEITHER of you is right when you say you can prove anything is historically accurate. History could be a pack of lies, and you wouldn't know the difference.

So NO ONE know ANYTHING about Christ for sure.

8) Ahhh.... Philosophy major......

_____________________________________
http://www.blurbco.com/~gork/random/ignignot.gif
"Everyone, please, bow your heads, and pretend to be serious."

The fact is, NEITHER of you existed in that time period so, NEITHER of you is right when you say you can prove anything is historically accurate. History could be a pack of lies, and you wouldn't know the difference.

So NO ONE know ANYTHING about Christ for sure.

8) Ahhh.... Philosophy major......


Bloody post modernists :P

But there is a difference between assuming something is accurate because it fits in with your idea of what it was like then, and thinking it is inaccurate due to Research, your own or someone elses
You realise it is a film produced by someone who cannot be described as impartial and whos aim was to make money.

I believe that the "Passion of the Christ" showed what most movies do not wish to reveal: reality.

:lol:

thats funny....i deleted my last post (here)...and it came back by itself...

furthermore...for some reason I cant edit or delete it...

mysteries of the Internet 8)

I believe that the "Passion of the Christ" showed what most movies do not wish to reveal: reality.

Care to justify that?

Do you only watch Hollywood films?

I believe that the "Passion of the Christ" showed what most movies do not wish to reveal: reality.

Are you implying that "Star Wars" isn't real?

Honestly.

Am I the only one who read all those news articles about Gibson using "historical information" from the "visions" of a mystic german nun? It's been on CNN, NY Times, and if you look, pretty much every local paper.

I didn't like the movie because it was too damn boring. No good dialogue, no good plot.

My fiancee and I didn't bother to go see it.

Am I the only one who read all those news articles about Gibson using "historical information" from the "visions" of a mystic german nun? It's been on CNN, NY Times, and if you look, pretty much every local paper.

I didn't like the movie because it was too damn boring. No good dialogue, no good plot.

Yeah, but I think that the scenes that he borrowed from were cut. Because it would have been 'contraversial.'

the movie impressed me. it made me cry more times than any movie ever has. even if a person doesn't believe he existed ...whether as a man, a son of man, or the begotten Son of God... it showed the path of a perfect king among his people, a man with his heart open to them for understanding, teaching some his ways, which was his kingship. And even though he would have been perfect for his people, for their time by their recorded needs, he was a king slain by a (theocracy?) so corrupted by greed that they didn't care for what their people might gain.

it would be difficult to depict the last hours before the crucifixion of Christ as recorded in the gospels without having some perceived errors. i only noticed a couple that i am pretty sure were unrelated to biblical scripture. there was definitely some hollywood involved with the satan-figure.

i didn't feel that there were any kind of antisemitist themes in the movie. it seemed fairly obvious that the torture of Christ came from leading military and religious groups of the time and not ALL of the populace.

I believe that the "Passion of the Christ" showed what most movies do not wish to reveal: reality.

Are you implying that "Star Wars" isn't real?

Honestly.

No but he is implying that Jesus hade large tables, had an impossibly high endurance and adamntium bones, that his body could replenish blood extremely quickly and could speak Latin despite the fact he probably never would have experienced it before. That all Romans spoke Latin, that the Jerusalem garrison was outfitted with futuristic armour plus a few more things.

Makes hyper space and invisible shields with the ability to stop visible lasers paltry. :wink:

My fiancee and I didn't bother to go see it.

You just loooooove talking about your fiancee don't you?

I believe that the "Passion of the Christ" showed what most movies do not wish to reveal: reality.

Are you implying that "Star Wars" isn't real?

Honestly.

No but he is implying that Jesus hade large tables, had an impossibly high endurance and adamntium bones, that his body could replenish blood extremely quickly and could speak Latin despite the fact he probably never would have experienced it before. That all Romans spoke Latin, that the Jerusalem garrison was outfitted with futuristic armour plus a few more things.

Makes hyper space and invisible shields with the ability to stop visible lasers paltry. :wink:

Ah, so it was more of an attack on Robo-Cop[/] or [i]The Terminator. Gotcha. :D

Expect an NSer by the name of 'Japacia' to come in here and bash The Passion

The next day...
I don't care if it was accurate or not. The movie sucked. It was boring as hell. No plot. Just non-stop torture.

:shock:

Superpower07's a psychic!

While the Cruicifixtion is an important aspect of the Bible and the story of Jesus, it is in no way, shape or form the whole of his message and to dwell on it in perverse detail like The Passion did and reduce even that small part of the message of Jesus to the level of a Friday the 13th slasher flick extends the idea that people only come to the Church out of guilt or fear, neither of which are solid reasons to embrace a faith.

By the way, it's all about the Cross. Without the death of Christ, we stand condemned. Without the resurrection of Christ, we cannot be raised to life. The Cross is at the heart of the gospel which is the heart of the Bible. It is the reason Christ came to the earth in the first place. He came to die. He didn't come simply to teach good, moral messages or to heal a bunch of sick bodies. He came to suffer and die, and then to live and be glorified.
Of course, the movie could be interpreted as a guilt/fear trip. But ultimately it's a love story that's more intense than anything we've ever seen before.
And that's why we don't like it.

Expect an NSer by the name of 'Japacia' to come in here and bash The Passion

The next day...
I don't care if it was accurate or not. The movie sucked. It was boring as hell. No plot. Just non-stop torture.

:shock:

Superpower07's a psychic!

:shock: or he's watching me

The movie sucked.
*
*
*
*
*
The following Flash animation(s) WILL be offensive to some.

The Aftermath of "The Passion": The "Passion" of the Christians (http://uploads.ungrounded.net/165000/165362_The_Passion_Of_The_Christi.swf).

Yes, I got the movie off of Newgrounds.com, I linked directly to the flash because Newgrounds.com has some pornography-related advertisements. Here's a direct link to where I got it from. Link. (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/165362)

Oh yeah, if you want to see the a trailer of the version of "The Passion" that Mel Gibson personally wrote during the filming of Lethal Weapon 4670545, go to the following. Messiah 2 (http://uploads.ungrounded.net/152000/152358_Messiah2.swf).

Messiah 2 was originally found: here (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/152358).

spelt

You spelled spelled wrong.

It's the British spelling of "spelt" you dumb sh*t.

As for myself, I saw it because I gave in to the hype and my curiosity but didn't want to give an evil nutsack like Mel Gibson any more money. So I downloaded it and I'm glad I did. It's so overrated and not controversial at all.

Of course, the movie could be interpreted as a guilt/fear trip. But ultimately it's a love story that's more intense than anything we've ever seen before.
And that's why we don't like it.

No, there are a lot of reasons why I don't like it-or the various things I've heard about it.

The fact that it's an "intense love story" is not on the list.

I still say the movie wasn't nearly as meaningful as the original.

I think Ve-Or had a decent reply.
In my opinion.

Am I the only one who read all those news articles about Gibson using "historical information" from the "visions" of a mystic german nun?

Yeah, but I think that the scenes that he borrowed from were cut. Because it would have been 'contraversial.'

That's not what I read.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrgibson8.htm#mat

Material in the movie that does not appear in the Gospels and the rest of the Bible:

As noted above, the movie contains many events that are not described in either the canonical Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) or in any of the other 50 or so Gospels that were revered by various early Christian groups but which never made it into the Bible. These events appear to have been created from the imaginations of the playwrights, and from other sources. One was a book "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" written by Brentano, a famous 19th century German poet and author. The book is also available online. It paraphrased visions experienced by St. Anne Catherine Emmerich. Emmerich, (1774-1824), was a Roman Catholic Augustinian nun who lived in Germany. A good case can be made that the movie is more closely related to Emmerlich's book with certain events deleted, than it is to the Gospels with certain events added.

Obviously, one cannot really determine if this is true without first reading Emmerich's book and then watching the movie.

If anyone cares to take the time to do so, a copy is available here: http://www.emmerich1.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm

even if a person doesn't believe he existed ...whether as a man, a son of man, or the begotten Son of God... it showed the path of a perfect king among his people

Not really. If you don't believe he ever existed, it shows a megalomaniac getting horribly beaten, then executed. The entire "king" interpretation can only exist if one watches the movie through a Christian perspective.

a man with his heart open to them for understanding, teaching some his ways, which was his kingship.

Again, I disagree that this is what "anyone" would see if they watched it.

And even though he would have been perfect for his people, for their time by their recorded needs, he was a king slain by a (theocracy?) so corrupted by greed that they didn't care for what their people might gain.

That's one interpretation. :roll: (BTW, in the eyes of "his people", Jesus was far from perfect for their needs.) Also, Jesus was killed by the Roman army, who at that time were part of an empire, not a theocracy.

it would be difficult to depict the last hours before the crucifixion of Christ as recorded in the gospels without having some perceived errors. i only noticed a couple that i am pretty sure were unrelated to biblical scripture.

Here's a list. Enjoy.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrgibson8.htm#mat

i didn't feel that there were any kind of antisemitist themes in the movie. it seemed fairly obvious that the torture of Christ came from leading military and religious groups of the time and not ALL of the populace.

*shrug* I can't speak to whether the movie's antisemitic or not until I see it. That said, based on what I've heard from those that have seen it, I can certainly understand why some people see it as antisemitic.

I've yet to see the film but look forward to seeing it. THE gospel of JOhn is another great film now on dvd! 8)

Am I the only one who read all those news articles about Gibson using "historical information" from the "visions" of a mystic german nun?

Yeah, but I think that the scenes that he borrowed from were cut. Because it would have been 'contraversial.'

That's not what I read.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrgibson8.htm#mat

What type of site is that from? Things can be slanted.

Material in the movie that does not appear in the Gospels and the rest of the Bible:

As noted above, the movie contains many events that are not described in either the canonical Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) or in any of the other 50 or so Gospels that were revered by various early Christian groups but which never made it into the Bible. These events appear to have been created from the imaginations of the playwrights, and from other sources. One was a book "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" written by Brentano, a famous 19th century German poet and author. The book is also available online. It paraphrased visions experienced by St. Anne Catherine Emmerich. Emmerich, (1774-1824), was a Roman Catholic Augustinian nun who lived in Germany. A good case can be made that the movie is more closely related to Emmerlich's book with certain events deleted, than it is to the Gospels with certain events added.

Obviously, one cannot really determine if this is true without first reading Emmerich's book and then watching the movie.

If anyone cares to take the time to do so, a copy is available here: http://www.emmerich1.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm

That's interesting. I heard that that was a source, but I never knew how major an influence...

even if a person doesn't believe he existed ...whether as a man, a son of man, or the begotten Son of God... it showed the path of a perfect king among his people

Not really. If you don't believe he ever existed, it shows a megalomaniac getting horribly beaten, then executed. The entire "king" interpretation can only exist if one watches the movie through a Christian perspective.

If you don't believe Jesus ever existed, then there's a deeper problem - historical ignorance. A Jewish (not Christian) historian named Josephus (sp?) is an independent verification of a man named Jesus from Galilee who preformed miricals.

a man with his heart open to them for understanding, teaching some his ways, which was his kingship.

Again, I disagree that this is what "anyone" would see if they watched it.

Perhaps one would have needed a bit of Biblical preparation before seeing the movie. Otherwise, it just looks like a man being killed.

And even though he would have been perfect for his people, for their time by their recorded needs, he was a king slain by a (theocracy?) so corrupted by greed that they didn't care for what their people might gain.

That's one interpretation. :roll: (BTW, in the eyes of "his people", Jesus was far from perfect for their needs.) Also, Jesus was killed by the Roman army, who at that time were part of an empire, not a theocracy.

The Roman Empire was not a theocracy, but the local Jewish government was. The theocracy of the Jewish government accused him, but only the Roman Empire could legally kill him.

it would be difficult to depict the last hours before the crucifixion of Christ as recorded in the gospels without having some perceived errors. i only noticed a couple that i am pretty sure were unrelated to biblical scripture.

Here's a list. Enjoy.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrgibson8.htm#mat

So you must be one of the people against the Passion.

i didn't feel that there were any kind of antisemitist themes in the movie. it seemed fairly obvious that the torture of Christ came from leading military and religious groups of the time and not ALL of the populace.

*shrug* I can't speak to whether the movie's antisemitic or not until I see it. That said, based on what I've heard from those that have seen it, I can certainly understand why some people see it as antisemitic.

You haven't even seen the movie? Trust me, unless you're into tiny details, the Catholic influence on the movie won't really effect the plot.

Just trying to set some facts straight.

Am I the only one who read all those news articles about Gibson using "historical information" from the "visions" of a mystic german nun?

Yeah, but I think that the scenes that he borrowed from were cut. Because it would have been 'contraversial.'

That's not what I read.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrgibson8.htm#mat

What type of site is that from? Things can be slanted.

I encourage you to read some of the articles on the site and make your own detemination about "what type of site" it is. If I told you what I thought it was, you could just as easily say that what I said was "slanted".

even if a person doesn't believe he existed ...whether as a man, a son of man, or the begotten Son of God... it showed the path of a perfect king among his people

Not really. If you don't believe he ever existed, it shows a megalomaniac getting horribly beaten, then executed. The entire "king" interpretation can only exist if one watches the movie through a Christian perspective.

If you don't believe Jesus ever existed, then there's a deeper problem - historical ignorance. A Jewish (not Christian) historian named Josephus (sp?) is an independent verification of a man named Jesus from Galilee who preformed miricals.

This remains debateable. First, Jesus is only mentioned twice in Josephus, and both of these instances are rather brief.

Furthermore, Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus, and was relying on stories passed on (also called "hearsay"). The fact that Josephus mentions Jesus (only a few lines in his book, BTW) does not, in my opinion, "prove" that Jesus was a historical figure. It certainly does not prove he performed miracles.

It also must be noted that most scholars believe that the Greek Josephus text we currently have was corrupted by Christians, so as to over-emphasize Jesus. A slightly more reliable (yet still problematic) version is in the Arabic. This website has translated both versions into English:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html

And even though he would have been perfect for his people, for their time by their recorded needs, he was a king slain by a (theocracy?) so corrupted by greed that they didn't care for what their people might gain.

That's one interpretation. :roll: (BTW, in the eyes of "his people", Jesus was far from perfect for their needs.) Also, Jesus was killed by the Roman army, who at that time were part of an empire, not a theocracy.

The Roman Empire was not a theocracy, but the local Jewish government was. The theocracy of the Jewish government accused him, but only the Roman Empire could legally kill him.

My point stands.

it would be difficult to depict the last hours before the crucifixion of Christ as recorded in the gospels without having some perceived errors. i only noticed a couple that i am pretty sure were unrelated to biblical scripture.

Here's a list. Enjoy.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrgibson8.htm#mat

So you must be one of the people against the Passion.

I didn't say I was against it. I merely provided a link to a site that has assembled a list of things that occur in the Passion and NOT in the New Testament. If you want to categorize me as being "against" it simply because I have pointed out that it has things in it that don't have Biblical sources, go ahead.

]i didn't feel that there were any kind of antisemitist themes in the movie. it seemed fairly obvious that the torture of Christ came from leading military and religious groups of the time and not ALL of the populace.

*shrug* I can't speak to whether the movie's antisemitic or not until I see it. That said, based on what I've heard from those that have seen it, I can certainly understand why some people see it as antisemitic.

You haven't even seen the movie? Trust me, unless you're into tiny details, the Catholic influence on the movie won't really effect the plot.

It is not the Catholic influence that I take issue with, per se. Rather, it is the fact that Gibson does not seem to have made the slightest attempt to provide context or explanation to the events he depicted.

Considering the subject matter- and how it has affected Christian-Jewish relations historically- this is quite troubling.

Im guessing thats because Gibsons idea was to tell a story...not so much tell a biblicallly accurate historical piece.
Some dramatization is to be expected.

As for the christian/Jewish relations thats largely due to stupidity on both sides.

I thought it was a horrible pointless movie. You can't prove that this one dude is so great, by showing him being brutally tortured. If that were true, every single action movie ever would be based around our various saviours. All I learned was that Mel Gibson is a dumb ass for trying to teach me soemthign with violence. God, I don't play video games to lear.

Im guessing thats because Gibsons idea was to tell a story...not so much tell a biblicallly accurate historical piece.
Some dramatization is to be expected.

I have no problem with dramatization. I simply don't find this particular story very interesting (hence I wouldn't find it very interesting dramatized. either), and I also think it would be much better if he provided more context to it. For instance, WHY are some of the Jews against Jesus? WHY are the Romans in Judea? What are the Jews' feelings about the Romans, pointing out the various differentiations between the Jewish populace, etc... Or he could have focused more on Jesus & the apostles, their emotions about the ongoing controversies, etc...

Similarly, he could have drawn from other Biblical sources to offer us a more complete and richer depiction of the Jesus movement and Jesus' activities.

Instead, he made certain other choices, and the Passion is the result. That's not necessarily bad, but it is something to be aware of.

As for the christian/Jewish relations thats largely due to stupidity on both sides.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Do you mean historically, or in reference to this movie, specifically, or both?

Im guessing thats because Gibsons idea was to tell a story...not so much tell a biblicallly accurate historical piece.
Some dramatization is to be expected.

I have no problem with dramatization. I simply don't find this particular story very interesting (hence I wouldn't find it very interesting dramatized. either), and I also think it would be much better if he provided more context to it. For instance, WHY are some of the Jews against Jesus? WHY are the Romans in Judea? What are the Jews' feelings about the Romans, pointing out the various differentiations between the Jewish populace, etc... Or he could have focused more on Jesus & the apostles, their emotions about the ongoing controversies, etc...

Similarly, he could have drawn from other Biblical sources to offer us a more complete and richer depiction of the Jesus movement and Jesus' activities.

Instead, he made certain other choices, and the Passion is the result. That's not necessarily bad, but it is something to be aware of.

As for the christian/Jewish relations thats largely due to stupidity on both sides.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Do you mean historically, or in reference to this movie, specifically, or both?

As for the movie itself....the goal was not to portray the work that Jesus may or may not have done.
Thats all been done before.
His goal was to show the brutality and pain that Jesus experienced, or may have experienced in his death.
That and nothing more.
So..in effect his movie was right on the money.

As for stupidity on both sides...

I was refering to both.

Some Christians are simply too stupid to stop and think before they say something like.."You guys killed our Lord!"..or.."You should apologize for killing Jesus."
Similarly many Jewish people just dont know when to leave well enough alone either.
This is on no way trying to say one side is any worse than the other, of course..simply that people tend to be stupid....all kinds of people.

I see it as this:

If Jesus was truly the son of god....( he wasnt...I dont buy any of it) but anyway..
Then his death was pre-ordained.
It was MEANT to happen.....
So looking for a scape goat is silly..or even stupid.

Why was it the Jews?

Becuase it happened in Isreal.....not Sweden.....we cant blame the Swiss....they werent there.....
There arent any Chekoslavakians to blame..they werent there either....
But never the less.....some idiots need to point fingers.

It was a great movie and very historiclly accurate.How was it historically accurate? Jesus wasn't even black!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrgibson8.htm#mat


And I thought I was pedantic :D .

Just a thought. Has anybody who claims that the Passion is "historically accurate" studied the history of this period at this time? Or are you just going along with preconcieved notion and what your chaplin/pastor/etc told you?

The Passion of Christ was just a non-stop blood fest that made millions so Mel Gibson could sleep a little bit better at night. (I really don't know how though.) By the way, where was the Passion? There was no passion!!! It was just playing the blame game on the Jews for slaughtering him. And it seems like Mel Gibson has done nothing good with his life other than starting Jet Li's career in my opinion. He is one happy little catholic who for some weird fucking reason thinks the halocaust didn't happen! I refuse to give my money to some low-life prick who made millions of dollars over someone else's message. I mean really. The bastard should have slit his wrists instead of putting this misery on everyone else. What a cockbite...

The Passion of Christ was just a non-stop blood fest that made millions so Mel Gibson could sleep a little bit better at night. (I really don't know how though.) By the way, where was the Passion? There was no passion!!! It was just playing the blame game on the Jews for slaughtering him. And it seems like Mel Gibson has done nothing good with his life other than starting Jet Li's career in my opinion. He is one happy little catholic who for some weird f--- reason thinks the halocaust didn't happen! I refuse to give my money to some low-life prick who made millions of dollars over someone else's message. I mean really. The bastard should have slit his wrists instead of putting this misery on everyone else. What a cockbite...

fyi, Passion also means love. Christians say Jesus died for our sins becuase he loved us.

Do you have any evidence that he denies the holocaust ever happened? I honestly don't know if he has even talked about it. I know that his father denies that the holocaust happened on the scale it is said to have happened. But the views of the father aren't nessasarily the views of the son.

The Passion of Christ was just a non-stop blood fest that made millions so Mel Gibson could sleep a little bit better at night. (I really don't know how though.) By the way, where was the Passion? There was no passion!!! It was just playing the blame game on the Jews for slaughtering him. And it seems like Mel Gibson has done nothing good with his life other than starting Jet Li's career in my opinion. He is one happy little catholic who for some weird f--- reason thinks the halocaust didn't happen! I refuse to give my money to some low-life prick who made millions of dollars over someone else's message. I mean really. The bastard should have slit his wrists instead of putting this misery on everyone else. What a cockbite...

Gee arn't we intelegent today. We have to swear our brains out to prove a point. Also give me a reason he is a prick. He just broadcasted his message. You also whine about how only anti semitic people go to see this movie but it's people like you whose responsible for the movies popularity. If you kept your mouth shut maybe only a minority of people would have seen it. Also funny how people like you passonitly disagree with this movie but yet some critics said abot Jesus (prepetuating a lie that he was someone special) or about Mel Gimbson (lowlife, prick, asshole) like the old saying goes if you do not have anything intelegent to say then just shut up stupid. Also Mel Gimbson did agknowledge the Holocost happened but also talked about the other millons of people that Hitler killed in his petty and frivolus wars and the genocide Stalin ingadged in the Ukaraine. Seriously there were a bunch of lunitics running around that point besides Hitler like Stalin, Mao, Fransisco Franco, Hirohito, Ante Pavilick and Benito Mussolini. It was sad phycotic madmen can get power just like that. Anyways loads of other people were sent to consentration camps besides Jews like Homosexuals, liberals and slovaks and many other groups. So it was not just another Crusade but like a KKK genocidal slaughter. By the wayu you should follow your own advise. Also you should read up on those dictators and all the rotten stuff they did and maybe you could understand Mel's responce. Also before critisizing someone you should actually see what it is you are critisizing. No before you call the film anti-simetic actually see the film and you would think the critisizm is garbage. Also there were alot of positive Jewish caracters in that movie. Like Marry trying to help her son or Simon who helped Jesus carry his cross and fought back the Roman soilders and the angry mob.

It was a great movie and very historiclly accurate.How was it historically accurate? Jesus wasn't even black!

In the movie Jesus was not black he was white. Did you even see the movie. Look something up before you trash it. If you don?t do research on something but scream out a opinon you will look like a moron like you did in this post.

tag

Jesus would have had dark skin similiar to Arabic peoples, would he not? He also would not have had blue eyes...

Another thing. We know that Pilate was cruel. So why (at least according to what my mom said) does the Passion depict him as compassionate for Jesus? Pilate would've killed him in a second if it meant retaining order in Judea.

Here's my two cents, i loved the film, i thought it was great. When i walked in the cinema i didn't believe in God, but when i walked out, i can't explain it. It was such a weird feeling. A week after seeing it, i converted to catholic.

Here's my two cents, i loved the film, i thought it was great. When i walked in the cinema i didn't believe in God, but when i walked out, i can't explain it. It was such a weird feeling. A week after seeing it, i converted to catholic.

Only one explanation. Subliminal Messaging. :shock:

Jesus would have had dark skin similiar to Arabic peoples, would he not? He also would not have had blue eyes...

It is pretty bizarre that they cast a Swiss man to play a guy from Israel. Even more bizarre that they used CGI to change the guy's eye color from blue to brown. (You'd think contacts would have done just as well...)

Here's my two cents, i loved the film, i thought it was great. When i walked in the cinema i didn't believe in God, but when i walked out, i can't explain it. It was such a weird feeling. A week after seeing it, i converted to catholic.

I heard people had a similar experience after seeing Star Wars and the Matrix

The movie was alright. The acting was mediocre. To put it in the terms of my theatre teacher, the actors were not "extending to the logical absurdities of the situation." I think it was a powerfull tool to share the story of Christ with someone, but i'd much rather share it through my every day actions. Also, I didn't like the fact that the resurection was only mentioned briefly in the movie. But to each his own..

F*** the Passion

Here's my two cents, i loved the film, i thought it was great. When i walked in the cinema i didn't believe in God, but when i walked out, i can't explain it. It was such a weird feeling. A week after seeing it, i converted to catholic.

I heard people had a similar experience after seeing Star Wars and the Matrix

What, like, people converted to Jedi-isim or had a religious experience and decided that Keanu Reeves was actually the messiah and could act to boot?

:D

Here's my two cents, i loved the film, i thought it was great. When i walked in the cinema i didn't believe in God, but when i walked out, i can't explain it. It was such a weird feeling. A week after seeing it, i converted to catholic.

I heard people had a similar experience after seeing Star Wars and the Matrix

What, like, people converted to Jedi-isim or had a religious experience and decided that Keanu Reeves was actually the messiah and could act to boot?

:D

Well, it is more realistic than omeone converting to a religion started by a Swissman because of a film.

Here's my two cents, i loved the film, i thought it was great. When i walked in the cinema i didn't believe in God, but when i walked out, i can't explain it. It was such a weird feeling. A week after seeing it, i converted to catholic.

I heard people had a similar experience after seeing Star Wars and the Matrix

What, like, people converted to Jedi-isim or had a religious experience and decided that Keanu Reeves was actually the messiah and could act to boot?

:D

Well, it is more realistic than omeone converting to a religion started by a Swissman because of a film.

The Swiss started Catholicisim? I didn't know that.

Here's my two cents, i loved the film, i thought it was great. When i walked in the cinema i didn't believe in God, but when i walked out, i can't explain it. It was such a weird feeling. A week after seeing it, i converted to catholic.

I heard people had a similar experience after seeing Star Wars and the Matrix

What, like, people converted to Jedi-isim or had a religious experience and decided that Keanu Reeves was actually the messiah and could act to boot?

:D

Well, it is more realistic than omeone converting to a religion started by a Swissman because of a film.

The Swiss started Catholicisim? I didn't know that.

According to the Gospel according to Mel they did.

Here's my two cents, i loved the film, i thought it was great. When i walked in the cinema i didn't believe in God, but when i walked out, i can't explain it. It was such a weird feeling. A week after seeing it, i converted to catholic.

I heard people had a similar experience after seeing Star Wars and the Matrix

What, like, people converted to Jedi-isim or had a religious experience and decided that Keanu Reeves was actually the messiah and could act to boot?

:D

Well, it is more realistic than omeone converting to a religion started by a Swissman because of a film.

The Swiss started Catholicisim? I didn't know that.

According to the Gospel according to Mel they did.

The Gospel according to Mel, huh? Hmmm, never read that. Must be in the Apocrypha.

F*** the Passion

Nice wording buetiful. That reallllllllllllllly convinced me that the passions sucked and it was a evil movie. Next time instead of ranting and raving and cursing like a flame bating idot you should try to explain your argument in a intelegent maor.

F*** the Passion

Nice wording buetiful. That reallllllllllllllly convinced me that the passions sucked and it was a evil movie. Next time instead of ranting and raving and cursing like a flame bating idot you should try to explain your argument in a intelegent maor.

I think that it maybe caused by the fact that this the umpteenth thread on this topic. And everyone has a point were they think fuck it and don't bother because they've done it so many times before.

F*** the Passion

Nice wording buetiful. That reallllllllllllllly convinced me that the passions sucked and it was a evil movie. Next time instead of ranting and raving and cursing like a flame bating idot you should try to explain your argument in a intelegent maor.

I think that it maybe caused by the fact that this the umpteenth thread on this topic. And everyone has a point were they think f--- it and don't bother because they've done it so many times before.

But at least say an argument why they feel that way instead of mothing off like a 2 year old.

F*** the Passion

Nice wording buetiful. That reallllllllllllllly convinced me that the passions sucked and it was a evil movie. Next time instead of ranting and raving and cursing like a flame bating idot you should try to explain your argument in a intelegent maor.

I've done so many times in this topic, if you will look at the whole thing.

F*** the Passion

Nice wording buetiful. That reallllllllllllllly convinced me that the passions sucked and it was a evil movie. Next time instead of ranting and raving and cursing like a flame bating idot you should try to explain your argument in a intelegent maor.

I've done so many times in this topic, if you will look at the whole thing. People don't tend to read the whole thread (even if it is their own) though, look at the National faggots week thread for a prime example.

F*** the Passion

Nice wording buetiful. That reallllllllllllllly convinced me that the passions sucked and it was a evil movie. Next time instead of ranting and raving and cursing like a flame bating idot you should try to explain your argument in a intelegent maor.

I've done so many times in this topic, if you will look at the whole thing. People don't tend to read the whole thread (even if it is their own) though, look at the National faggots week thread for a prime example.

I'm almost tempted to just give people links to the older threads where this is re-hashed over and over. But I have better things to do.

It does get rather tedious, though.

No, it sucks.

No, it sucks.

Yes, much so. A few weeks ago I made a thread titled, "I hate The Passion".

Seriously give me your reasons and substancial evidance from credibale sources and I will stop this thread but until then i will countinue this.

Seriously give me your reasons and substancial evidance from credibale sources and I will stop this thread but until then i will countinue this.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrgibson8.htm#mat

http://www.holy-trinity.org/feasts/benigsen-physicaldeath.html

Before the crucifixion, however, came the scourging. Every Roman execution (except those of women and Roman senators or soldiers) was preceded with scourging. Our Lord was stripped of His clothing and His hands were tied to an upright post. The whip consisted of several short braids of leather thongs with small iron balls or sharp pieces of sheep bones tied at intervals along the length.


Quoting from the medical article: "The upper and lower back and legs were flogged either by two soldiers or by one who alternated positions. The severity of the scourging depended on the disposition of the soldiers and was intended to weaken the victim to a state just short of collapse or death

ie, the scourging was inaccurate.

Cannot find the fact that the Romans' armour was inaccurate. Because :shock: not everything is on the interent, but if you want you can buy a flight and I'll show you a book.

Anything else?

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/stories/s1066733.htm

Greek, not Latin, was the lingua franca of the eastern part of the Roman Empire.


*Ian Young is a senior lecturer in the Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies at the University of Sydney.

Also look at

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/madmax.htm

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/forensic.htm (this one doesn't prove anything but it is interesting)

The Passion of Christ was just a non-stop blood fest that made millions so Mel Gibson could sleep a little bit better at night. (I really don't know how though.) By the way, where was the Passion? There was no passion!!! It was just playing the blame game on the Jews for slaughtering him. And it seems like Mel Gibson has done nothing good with his life other than starting Jet Li's career in my opinion. He is one happy little catholic who for some weird f--- reason thinks the halocaust didn't happen! I refuse to give my money to some low-life prick who made millions of dollars over someone else's message. I mean really. The bastard should have slit his wrists instead of putting this misery on everyone else. What a cockbite...

Gee arn't we intelegent today. We have to swear our brains out to prove a point. Also give me a reason he is a prick. He just broadcasted his message. You also whine about how only anti semitic people go to see this movie but it's people like you whose responsible for the movies popularity. If you kept your mouth shut maybe only a minority of people would have seen it. Also funny how people like you passonitly disagree with this movie but yet some critics said abot Jesus (prepetuating a lie that he was someone special) or about Mel Gimbson (lowlife, prick, asshole) like the old saying goes if you do not have anything intelegent to say then just shut up stupid. Also Mel Gimbson did agknowledge the Holocost happened but also talked about the other millons of people that Hitler killed in his petty and frivolus wars and the genocide Stalin ingadged in the Ukaraine. Seriously there were a bunch of lunitics running around that point besides Hitler like Stalin, Mao, Fransisco Franco, Hirohito, Ante Pavilick and Benito Mussolini. It was sad phycotic madmen can get power just like that. Anyways loads of other people were sent to consentration camps besides Jews like Homosexuals, liberals and slovaks and many other groups. So it was not just another Crusade but like a KKK genocidal slaughter. By the wayu you should follow your own advise. Also you should read up on those dictators and all the rotten stuff they did and maybe you could understand Mel's responce. Also before critisizing someone you should actually see what it is you are critisizing. No before you call the film anti-simetic actually see the film and you would think the critisizm is garbage. Also there were alot of positive Jewish caracters in that movie. Like Marry trying to help her son or Simon who helped Jesus carry his cross and fought back the Roman soilders and the angry mob.

All right then. Let's review shall we? No. 1 You can't even spell intelligent. What does that say about you? Secondly, Mel Gibson does deny the holocaust. Thirdly Mel Gibson is a George W Bush support who thinks that it's good we're in Iraq. Why would anyone think that a war is good? Funny about that. Mel Gibson doesn't have anything intelligent to say. IT WAS A STORY THAT HAS BEEN TOLD HUNDREDS OF TIMES BEFORE AND IS RECITED EVERY DAY FROM THE BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And here's an idea. Let's make a religous film filled with blood and torture for the majority. Yeah, I'm sure Jesus would love that. What I meant by where is the passion? is that why not show the love he had for others? Why not show him healing the lepers, curing the blind, making the crippled walk? Why not show his passion by the way he got incredibly mad at all those animal sacrifice cults? Why not even make it an up-lifting film so that people can follow his example? No, let's not do that. Let's watch him get whipped and tortured and beaten to a pulp. Let's watch him get nails in his hands and feet. Lets see him die. Then let's walk away from the film feeling very happy and up-lifted? I will admit that the crucifixtion was brutal, but they did that to anyone they could back in those days. My major concern is that people are going to bring their kids to the film so they can get the right idea. All of it was just the catholic principle. Make people feel guilty. We shouldn't feel guilty. We should learn from it. So thank you for YOUR intelligent insight. And I'm glad you feel I should slit my wrists because, quite frankly, you'll say that to the wrong person one day. So thank you and your numerous spelling errors and illogical statements. I feel up-lifted now.

I loved the Passion. It's a great movie man 8)

even if a person doesn't believe he existed ...whether as a man, a son of man, or the begotten Son of God... it showed the path of a perfect king among his people

Not really. If you don't believe he ever existed, it shows a megalomaniac getting horribly beaten, then executed. The entire "king" interpretation can only exist if one watches the movie through a Christian perspective.

i'm not sure why one would *have* to be a christian to determine that Christ's social ideals and laws were not those of an honorable and just king. Christ was a reasonable man, according to the history written by people who not only knew him, but were taught by him, and he would most likely have been respected by the greeks and romans as a king. If the theocracy i had spoken of ...which was the jewish religious heirarchy, not the roman military....had not killed him(as it was them who caused him to be slain), he may have not only cleansed the state of religious corruption, but also caused government reforms in Rome through debate. But, alas, the Judean priests caused him to be crucified, and that ended the story.

a man with his heart open to them for understanding, teaching some his ways, which was his kingship.

Again, I disagree that this is what "anyone" would see if they watched it.

if i said "anyone," i apologize. i usually don't try to generalize my statements in such ways as to assume the views of billions of people. also, when i made this statement, i don't know that i was talking about the movie as much as scripture...the movie didn't show so much of his teachings as it did his suffering. as far as my statement goes...it is a fact, as near as i can tell by the written history of Christ's life...that he conversed openly with the people he met. he even changed his mind about the way some things were supposed to work according to what they said. he was a good man. i'd vote for him. especially now.

And even though he would have been perfect for his people, for their time by their recorded needs, he was a king slain by a (theocracy?) so corrupted by greed that they didn't care for what their people might gain.

That's one interpretation. :roll: (BTW, in the eyes of "his people", Jesus was far from perfect for their needs.) Also, Jesus was killed by the Roman army, who at that time were part of an empire, not a theocracy.

aye...the roman army carried out the execution exacted by the jewish priests. if a man is given a death sentence by a judge, who is his killer? the accuser, the judge, the nation or the man at the switch(needle...whatever...do i have to include all possibilities for everything or can i get a point off with brevity)?

how was he not perfect for their needs? everything he said, as far as social ideals go, would have resulted in powerful social and religious reform. how would you know? the jewish priests killed him off before he could get anything done, as they were given to do. it was part of the point.

it would be difficult to depict the last hours before the crucifixion of Christ as recorded in the gospels without having some perceived errors. i only noticed a couple that i am pretty sure were unrelated to biblical scripture.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrgibson8.htm#mat

I don't really need a list to know that the movie was biblically inaccurate, but i appreciate the link. if one were to read the gospels carefully, or at least with "passion", they would find that their authors weren't in complete agreement with minute facts either.

i didn't feel that there were any kind of antisemitist themes in the movie. it seemed fairly obvious that the torture of Christ came from leading military and religious groups of the time and not ALL of the populace.

*shrug* I can't speak to whether the movie's antisemitic or not until I see it. That said, based on what I've heard from those that have seen it, I can certainly understand why some people see it as antisemitic.[/quote]

the jewish high priest wanted Christ dead. he and other priests had him crucified. they were a group of people in high power, to whom the romans had delegated certain degrees of authority. they were not representative of every jewish person of the time and even less so of the jewish people of today. i would have to believe that people would only see this as antisemitic if they believed that every semite was a good semite and that their history as a ruling people was completely free of corruption and oppression, therefore being offended at any expression of said corruptions in today's media(in whatever form). i didn't get "all jews are bad bad people" from this movie...i think the point was that wealth and greed can so corrupt a people that they will go so far as to ask their own conquerors to kill a righteous man (for fear that the people would accept him as king, btw, or why else?) to keep rolling in it.

Ve-Or,

Two points.

First, although I'm aware the NT (and the Passion) place most of the blame on the High Priests for Christ's death, you should be aware that this is almost certainly historically inaccurate. The Jews were under Roman occupation, and Pilate was known to be a particularly bloody and vicious leader. It is inconceivable that the Jewish Priests could have coerced Pilate into killing anybody.

As such, these statements are quite inaccurate:

If the theocracy i had spoken of ...which was the jewish religious heirarchy, not the roman military....had not killed him(as it was them who caused him to be slain), he may have not only cleansed the state of religious corruption, but also caused government reforms in Rome through debate. But, alas, the Judean priests caused him to be crucified, and that ended the story.

aye...the roman army carried out the execution exacted by the jewish priests. if a man is given a death sentence by a judge, who is his killer? the accuser, the judge, the nation or the man at the switch

To borrow your analogy, in this case, the Priests could, AT MOST, be seen as "accusers" whom the judge did not respect and would almost certainly never have obeyed. It is thus extremely doubtful that they in fact were the cause of Christ's death.

Second, to answer your question:

And even though he would have been perfect for his people, for their time by their recorded needs, he was a king slain by a (theocracy?) so corrupted by greed that they didn't care for what their people might gain.

in the eyes of "his people", Jesus was far from perfect for their needs.

how was he not perfect for their needs? everything he said, as far as social ideals go, would have resulted in powerful social and religious reform. how would you know? the jewish priests killed him off before he could get anything done, as they were given to do. it was part of the point.

Here is what I meant. First, Jesus was not "perfect for their needs" as the Messiah, because he did not meet the various Messianic qualifications.

Second, since you brought it up, his social ideals were NOT original. Many of them, are in fact, either direct quotes or obvious paraphrases of PHARISEE teachings. (Jesus' "Greatest Commandment", for instance, is an overt rip-off of the sage Hillel's "Greatest Commandment". Hillel was a Pharisee who lived a generation before Christ's alleged birth.) It's therefore incorrect to say that Jesus' ideas would have resulted in powerful reform- his ideas were the Pharisee's ideas, and they did.

Lastly, the fact that he was killed before he "could get anything done" would have only reinforced the fact that he was not the Messiah, since it is by the Messiah's ACTIONS (and by fulfilling other pre-requisite requirements) that he is determined to BE the Messiah.

I'm sorry I don't have time to address the rest of your post. Perhaps tomorrow.

'The Passion was great'
'The Passion sucked' blah blah blah...

I didn't think it was bloody enough. Sure, there were pools of it, but after a while when the skin was coming off his body and he was covered in it. It was hard to tell where it was coming from. Or it just might be me.

The Jews were under Roman occupation, and Pilate was known to be a particularly bloody and vicious leader. It is inconceivable that the Jewish Priests could have coerced Pilate into killing anybody.

it seemed less a coercion and more a game, portrayed in the movie. as a short lived governor with a vicious record, it could be that he enjoyed playing a bystander in watching priests crucify a man who never hurt anyone. the murderer in the movie was a robber in the gospels, unless that was one of those interesting minor details. regardless, rome did not allow pilate to serve long in judea, perhaps because of his atrocities...i don't have much information about his military history.

aye...the roman army carried out the execution exacted by the jewish priests. if a man is given a death sentence by a judge, who is his killer? the accuser, the judge, the nation or the man at the switch

To borrow your analogy, in this case, the Priests could, AT MOST, be seen as "accusers" whom the judge did not respect and would almost certainly never have obeyed. It is thus extremely doubtful that they in fact were the cause of Christ's death.

once again it is not doubtful if the pilate thought of the whole thing as pleasurable in the midst of that dreary, everyday ..."kill this guy, that guy, yes yes let's lash him a bit..." he might have really enjoyed it...surely the priests thought of themselves as holier than him. i'm sure he knew it too. if he didn't like them, and he was cold enough...he might have just watched to see what would happen. ultimately, though, if pilate would not have killed him except that the priests wanted him to, they are the killers.

Second, to answer your question:


how was he not perfect for their needs? everything he said, as far as social ideals go, would have resulted in powerful social and religious reform. how would you know? the jewish priests killed him off before he could get anything done, as they were given to do. it was part of the point.

Here is what I meant. First, Jesus was not "perfect for their needs" as the Messiah, because he did not meet the various Messianic qualifications.

i can't argue that point yet.

Second, since you brought it up, his social ideals were NOT original. Many of them, are in fact, either direct quotes or obvious paraphrases of PHARISEE teachings. (Jesus' "Greatest Commandment", for instance, is an overt rip-off of the sage Hillel's "Greatest Commandment". Hillel was a Pharisee who lived a generation before Christ's alleged birth.)

direct quotes or paraphrases from what pharisee documents? i'm not sure exactly what Jesus' greatest commandment was. hillel is worth looking into. how long is a generation?

It's therefore incorrect to say that Jesus' ideas would have resulted in powerful reform- his ideas were the Pharisee's ideas, and they did.

yes, i was trying to trick you there and you came at me with new information that i'd love to have reliable sources for.

(and by fulfilling other pre-requisite requirements)

how many?

Can't bring myself to watchanything that Mel (history distorter) Gibson has had a hand in.
Might be a good work of fiction but as most cricifictions took place on a pole rather than a cross etc etc etc it is not a historic representation.

I saw the passion a week after it came out in the UK....and it was the best film that I have ever seen. Ever.

More discussion about the Passion (http://s7.invisionfree.com/Light_of_the_World/index.php?showtopic=4&st=0)

Jesus would have had dark skin similiar to Arabic peoples, would he not? He also would not have had blue eyes...

Even today there are blond haired and blue eyed people born in the middle east, let alone 2,000 years ago when the people inhabiting the area may have had an entirely different appearence. We know for example that there were blond haired, blue eyed people, known as the Libyans, who occupied parts of North Africa during Egyptian times.

Jesus would have had dark skin similiar to Arabic peoples, would he not? He also would not have had blue eyes...

Even today there are blond haired and blue eyed people born in the middle east, let alone 2,000 years ago when the people inhabiting the area may have had an entirely different appearence. We know for example that there were blond haired, blue eyed people, known as the Libyans, who occupied parts of North Africa during Egyptian times.

There is a problem with that. Jesus wasn't a 'Libyan' he was Jewish so he would have looked like the average Jew in all respects. Of course we will never know what he looked like for sure, but I think it is most likely he looked Jewish.

Also in ancient Christian 'chapels' in Kerala (where Thomas the doubter went) there are murals depicting Jesus as semitic looking, since these date from the days of Thomas it is likely that he told them what he looked like.


"Jesus was a white man, from Oxford" - Eddie Izzard

Well lets see if pilate wanted Jesus dead why did he put up on his cross that he is basickly their savior. Face it the Jewish temple leaders, jewish military and sadistic Roman soilders wanted him dead so like a slave for fear of a rebellion, Pilate slavishly followed orders. So to blame it all one the romans is a historical inaccuracy. Also yes Pilate was brutal but he did not see a reason to kill Jesus. Rather it was the elite that saw him as a threat. Seriously read the Bible.

By the way I wish to see evidance of Mel Gimbson publickly deniying the Holocost. Also in the Holocost many people were killed because they were demed racialy inferior. For example my grandpa and my uncle were killed because they were demed racially inferior because the were catholic slovaks so they got "special treatment" from other captured soilders. They were put in consentration camps and tortured without mercy. And know they are emotional wrecks.

Again I make the point that's probably been made several times in this thread before.
If this movie can have the effect of encouraging people to start to ask questions about the Christian faith, to bring about discussions like this then do the technicalities and the historical accuracies really matter all that much?
Just a thought

Again I make the point that's probably been made several times in this thread before.
If this movie can have the effect of encouraging people to start to ask questions about the Christian faith, to bring about discussions like this then do the technicalities and the historical accuracies really matter all that much?
Just a thought

Actually, yes, in a way they do, because Mel has claimed historical accuracy and, if this claim isn't correct, that needs to be addressed.

The Passion of Christ was just a non-stop blood fest that made millions so Mel Gibson could sleep a little bit better at night. (I really don't know how though.) By the way, where was the Passion? There was no passion!!! It was just playing the blame game on the Jews for slaughtering him. And it seems like Mel Gibson has done nothing good with his life other than starting Jet Li's career in my opinion. He is one happy little catholic who for some weird f--- reason thinks the halocaust didn't happen! I refuse to give my money to some low-life prick who made millions of dollars over someone else's message. I mean really. The bastard should have slit his wrists instead of putting this misery on everyone else. What a cockbite...

Gee arn't we intelegent today. We have to swear our brains out to prove a point. Also give me a reason he is a prick. He just broadcasted his message. You also whine about how only anti semitic people go to see this movie but it's people like you whose responsible for the movies popularity. If you kept your mouth shut maybe only a minority of people would have seen it. Also funny how people like you passonitly disagree with this movie but yet some critics said abot Jesus (prepetuating a lie that he was someone special) or about Mel Gimbson (lowlife, prick, asshole) like the old saying goes if you do not have anything intelegent to say then just shut up stupid. Also Mel Gimbson did agknowledge the Holocost happened but also talked about the other millons of people that Hitler killed in his petty and frivolus wars and the genocide Stalin ingadged in the Ukaraine. Seriously there were a bunch of lunitics running around that point besides Hitler like Stalin, Mao, Fransisco Franco, Hirohito, Ante Pavilick and Benito Mussolini. It was sad phycotic madmen can get power just like that. Anyways loads of other people were sent to consentration camps besides Jews like Homosexuals, liberals and slovaks and many other groups. So it was not just another Crusade but like a KKK genocidal slaughter. By the wayu you should follow your own advise. Also you should read up on those dictators and all the rotten stuff they did and maybe you could understand Mel's responce. Also before critisizing someone you should actually see what it is you are critisizing. No before you call the film anti-simetic actually see the film and you would think the critisizm is garbage. Also there were alot of positive Jewish caracters in that movie. Like Marry trying to help her son or Simon who helped Jesus carry his cross and fought back the Roman soilders and the angry mob.

All right then. Let's review shall we? No. 1 You can't even spell intelligent. What does that say about you? Secondly, Mel Gibson does deny the holocaust. Thirdly Mel Gibson is a George W Bush support who thinks that it's good we're in Iraq. Why would anyone think that a war is good? Funny about that. Mel Gibson doesn't have anything intelligent to say. IT WAS A STORY THAT HAS BEEN TOLD HUNDREDS OF TIMES BEFORE AND IS RECITED EVERY DAY FROM THE BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And here's an idea. Let's make a religous film filled with blood and torture for the majority. Yeah, I'm sure Jesus would love that. What I meant by where is the passion? is that why not show the love he had for others? Why not show him healing the lepers, curing the blind, making the crippled walk? Why not show his passion by the way he got incredibly mad at all those animal sacrifice cults? Why not even make it an up-lifting film so that people can follow his example? No, let's not do that. Let's watch him get whipped and tortured and beaten to a pulp. Let's watch him get nails in his hands and feet. Lets see him die. Then let's walk away from the film feeling very happy and up-lifted? I will admit that the crucifixtion was brutal, but they did that to anyone they could back in those days. My major concern is that people are going to bring their kids to the film so they can get the right idea. All of it was just the catholic principle. Make people feel guilty. We shouldn't feel guilty. We should learn from it. So thank you for YOUR intelligent insight. And I'm glad you feel I should slit my wrists because, quite frankly, you'll say that to the wrong person one day. So thank you and your numerous spelling errors and illogical statements. I feel up-lifted now.

Seriously calm down. We are debating not screaming our heads off like 2 year olds. Also I did not insult you so why are you attacking me. Isn't it sad that instead of debating like logical people we have to scream and insult people. You sound like this to me: your a stupid head, hehe you also have bad grameer and I'm right and your wrong so I do not have to present evidence on my opinon. Please. This is nationstates not kindegarden. By the way I wish to thank you on proving my theory it is impossible to have a uplifting and intelligent debate. By the way you left wing liberals say that you are champions of free speach but your not letting someone state their opinions on the death of Chris. Also I do not see why you can throw elephant sh*t on the virgin Mary but you can?t make a film about Jesus Christ broadcasting his message of peace. Can anyone say hypocrite.

Well lets see if pilate wanted Jesus dead why did he put up on his cross that he is basickly their savior. Face it the Jewish temple leaders, jewish military and sadistic Roman soilders wanted him dead so like a slave for fear of a rebellion, Pilate slavishly followed orders. So to blame it all one the romans is a historical inaccuracy. Also yes Pilate was brutal but he did not see a reason to kill Jesus. Rather it was the elite that saw him as a threat. Seriously read the Bible.

Here's another question. If they high priests wanted him dead, why did they not have him stoned?
Pilate could have put up the sign to annoy the Jewish high-priests, although it is impossible to confirm anything.
The idea that a Roman governor would panda to the conquered is hardly realistic.
If Jesus was seen as a political agititator then Pilate would see him as a threat and would kill him.
Also the Bible is not the sole source for this period

By the way I wish to see evidance of Mel Gimbson publickly deniying the Holocost. Also in the Holocost many people were killed because they were demed racialy inferior. For example my grandpa and my uncle were killed because they were demed racially inferior because the were catholic slovaks so they got "special treatment" from other captured soilders. They were put in consentration camps and tortured without mercy. And know they are emotional wrecks. This rumour came about because Mel's father, Hutton, went on record just before the Passion's release saying that the holocaust didn't occur on the scale that it is reported. Because of this some people have assumed that the vies of the father are the views of the son.

Sorry to here about our family, and you are not the only person to have lost family to the Nazis here.

"I was born a human being in 1922 A.D. What does “A.D.” signify? That commemorates an inmate of this lunatic asylum we call Earth who was nailed to a wooden cross by a bunch of other inmates. With him still conscious, they hammered spikes through his wrists and insteps, and into the wood. Then they set the cross upright, so he dangled up there where even the shortest person in the crowd could see him writhing this way and that.

Can you imagine people doing such a thing to a person?

No problem. That’s entertainment. Ask the devout Roman Catholic Mel Gibson, who, as an act of piety, has just made a fortune with a movie about how Jesus was tortured. Never mind what Jesus said." -Kurt Vonnegut

That pretty much sums up how I feel.

Face it the Jewish temple leaders, jewish military and sadistic Roman soilders wanted him dead so like a slave for fear of a rebellion, Pilate slavishly followed orders. So to blame it all one the romans is a historical inaccuracy. Also yes Pilate was brutal but he did not see a reason to kill Jesus. Rather it was the elite that saw him as a threat. Seriously read the Bible.

I have read the Bible. I'm saying I think the Bible is INACCURATE. Pilate would not have "slavishly" followed anyone. The Bible speaks of how before Jesus' death, Pilate had executed THOUSANDS of Jews. Why would one more have made any difference?

I'm not "blaming it all on the Romans". I'm sure that Jesus' Jewish rivals played a role in getting him killed- if he indeed existed and was killed. However, it's historically inaccurate for YOU to "blame it all on the Jews" because the Bible says so. The historical facts don't line up. The Priests didn't have the authority to give Pilate orders. Period.

F*** the Passion.

If this movie can have the effect of encouraging people to start to ask questions about the Christian faith, to bring about discussions like this then do the technicalities and the historical accuracies really matter all that much?

Since many of our discussions are focusing on problems with the movie, particularly historical accuracy, I'd say they certainly do. I don't have any questions about the Christian faith. I have issues with how Gibson has portrayed Jesus and the world he was living in- and the people he was living with.


The Jews were under Roman occupation, and Pilate was known to be a particularly bloody and vicious leader. It is inconceivable that the Jewish Priests could have coerced Pilate into killing anybody.

it seemed less a coercion and more a game, portrayed in the movie. as a short lived governor with a vicious record, it could be that he enjoyed playing a bystander in watching priests crucify a man who never hurt anyone.

Except of course, he was NOT a bystander. HE GAVE THE ORDER to HIS MEN to crucify Jesus.

the murderer in the movie was a robber in the gospels, unless that was one of those interesting minor details.

Are you speaking of Barrabas? I've read some scholarly works suggesting that Barrabas was probably not a robber or murderer, but a Jewish militant, who had rebelled against Rome. In that case, it would be obvious why the crowd- who hated Rome- would have chosen him to be freed over Christ, who is portrayed in the Gospels as being a pacifist.

regardless, rome did not allow pilate to serve long in judea, perhaps because of his atrocities...i don't have much information about his military history.

I found some.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Pontius%20Pilate

Pilate is said to have displayed a serious lack of empathy for Jewish sensibilities, for example by displaying Roman battle standards.

On one occasion, when the soldiers under his command came to Jerusalem, he caused them to bring with them their ensigns, upon which were the usual images of the emperor. The ensigns were brought in privily by night, but their presence was soon discovered. Immediately multitudes of excited Jews hastened to Caesarea to petition him for the removal of the obnoxious ensigns. For five days he refused to hear them, but on the sixth he took his place on the judgment seat, and when the Jews were admitted he had them surrounded with soldiers and threatened them with instant death unless they ceased to trouble him with the matter. The Jews thereupon flung themselves on the ground and bared their necks, declaring that they preferred death to the violation of their laws. Pilate, unwilling to slay so many, yielded the point and removed the ensigns.

http://www.primechoice.com/philosophy/shelp/whokilledjesus.htm

If we believe the Gospels then Pontius Pilate was a good man who did not want to kill Jesus. Yet historical records show Pontius to be anything but a good man.

Historical records tell us that King Agrippa I wrote a letter to Carigula, about Pilate's

corruption, his acts of insolence, and his rapine and his habit of insulting people, and his continual murder of persons untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity. (See Maccoby, Revolution in Judea: p57-58)

Likewise Philo wrote that Pilate was an:

unbending and recklessly hard character.

and that he was famous for:

Corruptibility, violence, robberies, ill treatment of the people, grievances, continuous executions without even the form of a trial, endless and intolerable cruelties.

The event that led to Pilate's downfall was the appearance of a Samaritan prophet. The prophet gained a large following. Pilate's method of dispelling the crowd around the prophet was typical of his character: he slaughtered them on their holy mountain. About four thousand Samaritans died in that massacre. When this brutal act was reported to the emperor, Pilate was recalled to Rome in 37 CE. (See Martin, New Testament Foundations I: p67)

It's hard to believe a man this brutal would be worried about killing Jesus. There were three religious leaders during the Roman period who people thought were Messiahs and who were crucified by the Romans, namely Yehuda of Galilee (6 C.E.), Theudas (44 C.E.), and Benjamin the Egyptian (60 C.E.) The Romans had no compunction about killing them which makes the story of Pontius Pilates concern about Jesus all the more implausible.

According to Matthew, during the trial of Jesus, Pontius:

washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility." All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

...The above account also implies that Pontius would allow a mob to coerce him against his will when it is much more likely that he would have had the entire mob killed for trying to coerce him.

Nicholls points out that the trial was improbable for other reasons as well. He writes:

Following the Jewish scholar Paul Winter in his influential book, The trial of Jesus, Vermes concluded that if indeed such a trial as the Gospels describe took place, the Sanhedrin achieved the considerable feat of breaking just about every rule in the book on a single occasion. (Vermes, Jesus the Jew p36)

One of the most relevant of these rules prohibits holding a capital trial by night or on a festival. We are asked by the synoptic writers to believe that Jesus was arraigned before the full Sanhedrin on the evening of the Passover celebration. Given the especial sacredness for Jews of the first night of Passover, such a claim alone will strain the credulity of anyone who has ever thought about its implications...

The historicity of the affair is more than suspect. Paul knows nothing of it and the accounts in the first two Gospels are both conflicting and highly tendentious...From anything we know from other sources about the character and conduct of Pilate, the accounts in all four Gospels of his inadequate attempts to defend Jesus against a Jewish mob howling for blood are so improbable as to border on the ludicrous. Pilate was eventually relieved of his post for brutality in his administration excessive even in Roman eyes. (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 17:85-89) It is not easily conceivable that this administrator, who did not shrink from massacres, would have gone through scruples of conscience on whether it was legitimate, in view of the nobility of Jesus' character, to yield to Jewish demands for the crucifixion of one individual.

Matthew adds an even more devastating but no less improbable touch when he has the crowd shout, "His blood be on us and our children", words that have been used down through the centuries to justify many a progrom and persecution...

The upshot of the Gospel accounts is to divert attention from a solid historical fact, nevertheless unmistakably present even in their own accounts, that Jesus was condemned in a Roman court on a Roman charge, and put to death by a method of execution only used by the Romans. So successful is this diversion of attention that to this day countless Christians believe that the Jews killed Christ.

aye...the roman army carried out the execution exacted by the jewish priests. if a man is given a death sentence by a judge, who is his killer? the accuser, the judge, the nation or the man at the switch

To borrow your analogy, in this case, the Priests could, AT MOST, be seen as "accusers" whom the judge did not respect and would almost certainly never have obeyed. It is thus extremely doubtful that they in fact were the cause of Christ's death.

once again it is not doubtful if the pilate thought of the whole thing as pleasurable in the midst of that dreary, everyday ..."kill this guy, that guy, yes yes let's lash him a bit..." he might have really enjoyed it...surely the priests thought of themselves as holier than him. i'm sure he knew it too. if he didn't like them, and he was cold enough...he might have just watched to see what would happen. ultimately, though, if pilate would not have killed him except that the priests wanted him to, they are the killers.

Fine, but that's not what happened. The fact that Pilate ordered Roman soldiers to kill Jesus indicate that HE wanted him dead. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have done it, he would have told the Jews to go away. Easy enough.

Plus, given the above information, it's basically inconceivable that Pilate would have ordered Jesus killed if he hadn't wanted to. The Jews might have been the ones who brought Jesus TO Pilate, but to say that he was bacially "pressured" into killing someone he didn't want to kill is to ignore the facts about the man. He LIKED killing people- or at least, was a strong proponent of eliminating men he saw as threats to Roman hegemony- which is how a messianic claimant would have been seen.


Second, since you brought it up, his social ideals were NOT original. Many of them, are in fact, either direct quotes or obvious paraphrases of PHARISEE teachings. (Jesus' "Greatest Commandment", for instance, is an overt rip-off of the sage Hillel's "Greatest Commandment". Hillel was a Pharisee who lived a generation before Christ's alleged birth.)

direct quotes or paraphrases from what pharisee documents? i'm not sure exactly what Jesus' greatest commandment was. hillel is worth looking into. how long is a generation?

In reverse order- According to Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, Hillel was born around 70 BCE and died in 10 CE.

Jesus' Greatest commandment is found in Matthew 22:34-40.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=MATT+22:34-40&version=NIV

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

The first commandment is basically a direct quote from the Torah, Deut. 6:5:

And thou shalt love HaShem thy G-d with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

The second is a paraphrase of Leviticus 19:18:

Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am HaShem.

Furthermore, the above commandment was codified into an official Rabbinical (Pharisee) "maxim", listed below:

Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a

A gentile came to Shammai saying that he would convert to Judaism if Shammai could teach him the whole Torah in the time that he could stand on one foot. Shammai drove him away with a builder's measuring stick! Hillel... converted the gentile by telling him, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it."

Lastly, if we take a peek at Encarta again:

Hillel's emphasis on adherence to ethical norms, personal piety, humility, and loving concern for one's fellows anticipated the moral teachings of Christ.

Or, as I would put it- Christ borrowed many of his "radical ideas" FROM Pharisees like Hillel.

Encarta says the following reg. Jesus and Pharisees, although I'm not entirely convinced it's accurate:

Jesus, in his condemnation of the Pharisees recorded in the New Testament (see Matthew 23), is in fact referring to the hypocritical Pharisees, also condemned in the Talmud. Among the five classes is the “shoulder Pharisee,” with his good deeds on his shoulder; but it also mentions the “God-fearing Pharisee,” like the Hebrew patriarch Job, and the “God-loving Pharisee.” These last appear even in the Gospels as sympathetic to Jesus (see Luke 7:37, 13:31), if not to his ideas.

This source also notes various theological similarities between Jesus and the Pharisees:

http://www.kencollins.com/jesus-16.htm

esus endorses the Pharisees’ teachings, but warns against their practices.

Why Jesus Endorses the Pharisees’ Teachings
If we compare Jesus’ discussions with the Pharisees with His discussions with the Sadducees, we find that Jesus has major doctrinal problems with Sadducees, but not with Pharisees. He differs only on the role of rabbinical tradition in interpreting the Law. On the following points, Jesus and the Pharisees find common cause against the Sadducees:

The existence of angels and demons
The resurrection and judgment on the last day
The coming of a Messiah
The necessity for preserving and keeping the Law
If you read 1 Maccabees in the Apocrypha, you understand the historical origins of the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Sadducees were modernists who saw much value in Greek philosophy. They were materialists who did not believe in angels or demons; they did not believe in an afterlife, let alone a resurrection or a judgment; they did not look for a Messiah, and they believed that the Law had to be adapted to modern times and the current state of knowledge.

For this reason, we find Jesus very often as a guest in a Pharisee’s dinner party, but we never see him hanging out with Sadducees. (Bear in mind that Pharisees would not socialize with anyone outside their party.) Most of Jesus’ followers, as for example Paul, came from the Pharisees. The New Testament does not record a single Sadducee converting to Jesus’ cause.

It should be noted that I'm not quite sure that the above quote is entirely accurate when describing Sadducee theology regarding the Law.

This last source also seems to provide some insight:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/jesus.html

Most statements attributed to Jesus in the New Testament conform to Jewish teachings. This is, of course, not surprising, since Jesus generally practiced Pharisaic (rabbinic) Judaism.

This link, from the same website, should also be helpful in giving you a little more background on the Pharisees. I don't know enough about Christianity to give you a very detailed comparison:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/sadducees_pharisees_essenes.html

The Pharisees... are the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism. Their main distinguishing characteristic was a belief in an Oral Law that God gave to Moses at Sinai along with the Torah. The Torah or Written Law was akin to the U.S. Constitution in the sense that it set down a series of laws that were open to interpretation. The Pharisees believed that God also gave Moses the knowledge of what these laws meant and how they should be applied. This oral tradition was codified and written down roughly three centuries later in what is known as the Talmud.

The Pharisees also maintained that an afterlife existed and that God punished the wicked and rewarded the righteous in the world to come. They also believed in a messiah who would herald an era of world peace.

Pharisees were in a sense blue-collar Jews who adhered to the tenets developed after the destruction of the Temple; that is, such things as individual prayer and assembly in synagogues.

Hopefully that should be enough as an intro to the Pharisees.


It's therefore incorrect to say that Jesus' ideas would have resulted in powerful reform- his ideas were the Pharisee's ideas, and they did.

yes, i was trying to trick you there and you came at me with new information that i'd love to have reliable sources for.

Please don't try to "trick" me. I don't appreciate it.


how was he not perfect for their needs? everything he said, as far as social ideals go, would have resulted in powerful social and religious reform. how would you know? the jewish priests killed him off before he could get anything done, as they were given to do. it was part of the point.

Here is what I meant. First, Jesus was not "perfect for their needs" as the Messiah, because he did not meet the various Messianic qualifications.

i can't argue that point yet.

http://members.aol.com/LazerA/archive/christianity.html

Christians claim that Jesus was the Messiah which the Torah tells will someday come. Yet, contrary to the claims of Christianity, Jesus never fulfilled any of these prophecies. Briefly, these are:

- He will return all Jews to the service of God in all its details.

- He will rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.

- He will gather in the dispersed Jews to the land of Israel.

- He will bring the entire world to serve God in unity.

Clearly, Jesus did not accomplish any of these things. In the past I have encountered Christians who have argued that Jesus has not failed to fulfill these conditions since he will fulfill them at the time of the "Second Coming". This is a meaningless argument. As the conditions clearly have not been fulfilled, there is no reason to assume he is the Messiah simply because some of his followers say he will do so at some undetermined point in the future. I could as easily make the same argument for myself, I will fulfill the conditions in the future so believe I am the Messiah now.

It should be noted that there is nothing in Jewish theology that preaches of a second coming. Additionally, the Messiah is supposed to raise the dead- not just "a few" dead, but all the righteous of Israel (or of the earth, I forget which).

Same source:

Even if we would reduce the claim for the legitimacy of Jesus from that of deity to that of a prophet, we would still be faced with a serious problem. The Torah lays out clear guidelines for determining who is a prophet. Jesus never qualified according to these rules, particularly since one of these laws is that a prophet cannot claim to abrogate God's laws and Jesus sought to do just this. It is for this reason that Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, better known as Maimonides, one of the greatest leaders of the Jewish people, applied to Jesus the verse in Daniel 7:25, "He will speak words against the Most High, and he will wear down the saints of the Most High, attempting to change the seasons and the Law" (Igeres Teiman).

Here are three other sources, which also mention the pre-requisite requirements for a person to even be ELLIGIBLE to be the Messiah:

http://ohr.edu/ask/ask00j.htm#Q1

http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/faq/general_messiah-criteria02.html

http://www.jewishpassion.com/pages/messiahvsjesus.html

I hope this was helpful. Please let me know if you have any other questions I might be able to help with.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but why you would wanna see Jesus get beat up for two hours is beyond me.

For God's sakes it's a HOLY SNUFF FILM! :evil:

The Passion of Christ was just a non-stop blood fest that made millions so Mel Gibson could sleep a little bit better at night. (I really don't know how though.) By the way, where was the Passion? There was no passion!!! It was just playing the blame game on the Jews for slaughtering him. And it seems like Mel Gibson has done nothing good with his life other than starting Jet Li's career in my opinion. He is one happy little catholic who for some weird f--- reason thinks the halocaust didn't happen! I refuse to give my money to some low-life prick who made millions of dollars over someone else's message. I mean really. The bastard should have slit his wrists instead of putting this misery on everyone else. What a cockbite...

Gee arn't we intelegent today. We have to swear our brains out to prove a point. Also give me a reason he is a prick. He just broadcasted his message. You also whine about how only anti semitic people go to see this movie but it's people like you whose responsible for the movies popularity. If you kept your mouth shut maybe only a minority of people would have seen it. Also funny how people like you passonitly disagree with this movie but yet some critics said abot Jesus (prepetuating a lie that he was someone special) or about Mel Gimbson (lowlife, prick, asshole) like the old saying goes if you do not have anything intelegent to say then just shut up stupid. Also Mel Gimbson did agknowledge the Holocost happened but also talked about the other millons of people that Hitler killed in his petty and frivolus wars and the genocide Stalin ingadged in the Ukaraine. Seriously there were a bunch of lunitics running around that point besides Hitler like Stalin, Mao, Fransisco Franco, Hirohito, Ante Pavilick and Benito Mussolini. It was sad phycotic madmen can get power just like that. Anyways loads of other people were sent to consentration camps besides Jews like Homosexuals, liberals and slovaks and many other groups. So it was not just another Crusade but like a KKK genocidal slaughter. By the wayu you should follow your own advise. Also you should read up on those dictators and all the rotten stuff they did and maybe you could understand Mel's responce. Also before critisizing someone you should actually see what it is you are critisizing. No before you call the film anti-simetic actually see the film and you would think the critisizm is garbage. Also there were alot of positive Jewish caracters in that movie. Like Marry trying to help her son or Simon who helped Jesus carry his cross and fought back the Roman soilders and the angry mob.

All right then. Let's review shall we? No. 1 You can't even spell intelligent. What does that say about you? Secondly, Mel Gibson does deny the holocaust. Thirdly Mel Gibson is a George W Bush support who thinks that it's good we're in Iraq. Why would anyone think that a war is good? Funny about that. Mel Gibson doesn't have anything intelligent to say. IT WAS A STORY THAT HAS BEEN TOLD HUNDREDS OF TIMES BEFORE AND IS RECITED EVERY DAY FROM THE BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And here's an idea. Let's make a religous film filled with blood and torture for the majority. Yeah, I'm sure Jesus would love that. What I meant by where is the passion? is that why not show the love he had for others? Why not show him healing the lepers, curing the blind, making the crippled walk? Why not show his passion by the way he got incredibly mad at all those animal sacrifice cults? Why not even make it an up-lifting film so that people can follow his example? No, let's not do that. Let's watch him get whipped and tortured and beaten to a pulp. Let's watch him get nails in his hands and feet. Lets see him die. Then let's walk away from the film feeling very happy and up-lifted? I will admit that the crucifixtion was brutal, but they did that to anyone they could back in those days. My major concern is that people are going to bring their kids to the film so they can get the right idea. All of it was just the catholic principle. Make people feel guilty. We shouldn't feel guilty. We should learn from it. So thank you for YOUR intelligent insight. And I'm glad you feel I should slit my wrists because, quite frankly, you'll say that to the wrong person one day. So thank you and your numerous spelling errors and illogical statements. I feel up-lifted now.

Seriously calm down. We are debating not screaming our heads off like 2 year olds. Also I did not insult you so why are you attacking me. Isn't it sad that instead of debating like logical people we have to scream and insult people. You sound like this to me: your a stupid head, hehe you also have bad grameer and I'm right and your wrong so I do not have to present evidence on my opinon. Please. This is nationstates not kindegarden. By the way I wish to thank you on proving my theory it is impossible to have a uplifting and intelligent debate. By the way you left wing liberals say that you are champions of free speach but your not letting someone state their opinions on the death of Chris. Also I do not see why you can throw elephant sh*t on the virgin Mary but you can?t make a film about Jesus Christ broadcasting his message of peace. Can anyone say hypocrite.

No. 1 You said I should follow my own advice. Basically you just saud there that I should slit my own wrists. I find that a little insulting. Tit for tat my dear Watson. Please, next time you insult my intelligence and tell me to slit my wrists, make sure you say it with as much tact as possible. Sound like a 2-year old do I? May I remind you of this:

You sound like this to me: your a stupid head, hehe you also have bad grameer and I'm right and your wrong so I do not have to present evidence on my opinon.

That one sounds like a two-year old throwing a tantrum at me... Any once again, you're wrong. It is possible to have an intelligent up-lifting debate. It just appears when someone expresses their opinion in a less politically correct way as myself you come along and throw mud at me. I am not saying Mel Gibson didn't have the right to make the Passion of Christ. But I don't have to pretend to like it. I think the main problem I have with it is that you can get a bible from almost anywhere and read about the love God and Jesus Christ has for us all, or you can pay $5 for a movie ticket to watch disturbing pictures of the man who gave his life for us being brutally beaten and killed. Yes it happened but I don't think his horrible death was the point of it all. I think, for some inexplicable reason it was for love. Perhaps I was a little bit annoyed at you and that's why I thought I would over-emphasize my point. My point is Mel Gibson is making millions of dollars off some one else's message. In a different world this might be an offense of law. I will let Mel state his opinions on the death of Christ but I do not have to like them or agree with them. You've heard what I've said about it being for love. Mel doesn't show that love very well. That's why I object to all the gore in that film because it wasn't justified in getting the real message across. And I've seen Kill Bill. Now I've let you say your opinions. I haven't blocked them out. I haven't not let you say them. But here is the thing that you right-wing conservatives ignore when it comes down to it. I don't have to agree with it. I do not have to like what you say. I can choose to ignore you or confront you on the issue. I have paid you respect by even listening to you. I can see where you are coming from. I understand it. But I don't like it. I don't have to like it. And Passion of Christ doesn't seem like a message of peace. I cannot see any message in it whatsoever. It just seems like a lot of people object to hippies in Roman times. Because that's what Jesus was in those times. A hippie. He wore sandals, he walked everywhere, he loved everyone, he gave protest to what he thought was wrong. Face it, he was a hippie. I respect and admire him for that. Same way I respect Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and many other people who spread messages of love. And yes, I can say hypocrite.

Dear God:

Why does this thread keep coming back?

Is this a new resurrection?

Is this thread the Second Coming?

I would appreciate answers.

Sincerely,
Margaret (You know, the girl who got her period.)

Is the movie good? id like to see it, just because it looks interesting.

Dear God:

Why does this thread keep coming back?

Is this a new resurrection?

Is this thread the Second Coming?

I would appreciate answers.

Sincerely,
Margaret (You know, the girl who got her period.)

This is God....frey Williams from Rock Bottom. I understand you've been having difficulties and Margaret, I'm here to help... *Simpsons rip-off

I am not saying Mel Gibson didn't have the right to make the Passion of Christ. But I don't have to pretend to like it. I think the main problem I have with it is that you can get a bible from almost anywhere and read about the love God and Jesus Christ has for us all, or you can pay $5 for a movie ticket to watch disturbing pictures of the man who gave his life for us being brutally beaten and killed.

5 dollars? Damn, that's cheap. All the theaters around here charge nothing below 8 or 9.

Passion of Christ doesn't seem like a message of peace. I cannot see any message in it whatsoever. It just seems like a lot of people object to hippies in Roman times. Because that's what Jesus was in those times. A hippie. He wore sandals, he walked everywhere, he loved everyone, he gave protest to what he thought was wrong. Face it, he was a hippie.

Not sure I buy that. Almost everyone wore sandals in those times, and walking was the main mode of transportation. It's also questionable if he really "loved" everyone- what about when he spews venom at Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees?

Also, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount seems to indicate that he took Jewish law pretty seriously- in fact, regarding some commandments he was even more strict than the normative Pharisee teachings.

I don't know how "hippy-like" that is.

Face it the Jewish temple leaders, jewish military and sadistic Roman soilders wanted him dead so like a slave for fear of a rebellion, Pilate slavishly followed orders. So to blame it all one the romans is a historical inaccuracy. Also yes Pilate was brutal but he did not see a reason to kill Jesus. Rather it was the elite that saw him as a threat. Seriously read the Bible.

I have read the Bible. I'm saying I think the Bible is INACCURATE. Pilate would not have "slavishly" followed anyone. The Bible speaks of how before Jesus' death, Pilate had executed THOUSANDS of Jews. Why would one more have made any difference?

I'm not "blaming it all on the Romans". I'm sure that Jesus' Jewish rivals played a role in getting him killed- if he indeed existed and was killed. However, it's historically inaccurate for YOU to "blame it all on the Jews" because the Bible says so. The historical facts don't line up. The Priests didn't have the authority to give Pilate orders. Period.

Ohh now I see this tactic you can't debate me so you have to insult me and call me a anti-semite. Besides I did not say the Jews were resposible I just said the elite were for fear the peasents would want rights. God read all of the posts before you make such outragous statements. Don't be such a noob.

Face it the Jewish temple leaders, jewish military and sadistic Roman soilders wanted him dead so like a slave for fear of a rebellion, Pilate slavishly followed orders. So to blame it all one the romans is a historical inaccuracy. Also yes Pilate was brutal but he did not see a reason to kill Jesus. Rather it was the elite that saw him as a threat. Seriously read the Bible.

I have read the Bible. I'm saying I think the Bible is INACCURATE. Pilate would not have "slavishly" followed anyone. The Bible speaks of how before Jesus' death, Pilate had executed THOUSANDS of Jews. Why would one more have made any difference?

I'm not "blaming it all on the Romans". I'm sure that Jesus' Jewish rivals played a role in getting him killed- if he indeed existed and was killed. However, it's historically inaccurate for YOU to "blame it all on the Jews" because the Bible says so. The historical facts don't line up. The Priests didn't have the authority to give Pilate orders. Period.

Ohh now I see this tactic you can't debate me so you have to insult me and call me a anti-semite. Besides I did not say the Jews were resposible I just said the elite were for fear the peasents would want rights. God read all of the posts before you make such outragous statements. Don't be such a noob.

Dear God:

Why does this thread keep coming back?

Is this a new resurrection?

Is this thread the Second Coming?

I would appreciate answers.

Sincerely,
Margaret (You know, the girl who got her period.)

I'd kill this thread if I only had the courage to do so. And congradulations on your period.

Dear God:

Why does this thread keep coming back?

Is this a new resurrection?

Is this thread the Second Coming?

I would appreciate answers.

Sincerely,
Margaret (You know, the girl who got her period.)

I'd kill this thread if I only had the courage to do so. And congradulations on your period.

Thank you. I'm a woman now. Which, quite frankly, is leading to a lot of gender confusion on my part.

The Passion of Christ was just a non-stop blood fest that made millions so Mel Gibson could sleep a little bit better at night. (I really don't know how though.) By the way, where was the Passion? There was no passion!!! It was just playing the blame game on the Jews for slaughtering him. And it seems like Mel Gibson has done nothing good with his life other than starting Jet Li's career in my opinion. He is one happy little catholic who for some weird f--- reason thinks the halocaust didn't happen! I refuse to give my money to some low-life prick who made millions of dollars over someone else's message. I mean really. The bastard should have slit his wrists instead of putting this misery on everyone else. What a cockbite...

Gee arn't we intelegent today. We have to swear our brains out to prove a point. Also give me a reason he is a prick. He just broadcasted his message. You also whine about how only anti semitic people go to see this movie but it's people like you whose responsible for the movies popularity. If you kept your mouth shut maybe only a minority of people would have seen it. Also funny how people like you passonitly disagree with this movie but yet some critics said abot Jesus (prepetuating a lie that he was someone special) or about Mel Gimbson (lowlife, prick, asshole) like the old saying goes if you do not have anything intelegent to say then just shut up stupid. Also Mel Gimbson did agknowledge the Holocost happened but also talked about the other millons of people that Hitler killed in his petty and frivolus wars and the genocide Stalin ingadged in the Ukaraine. Seriously there were a bunch of lunitics running around that point besides Hitler like Stalin, Mao, Fransisco Franco, Hirohito, Ante Pavilick and Benito Mussolini. It was sad phycotic madmen can get power just like that. Anyways loads of other people were sent to consentration camps besides Jews like Homosexuals, liberals and slovaks and many other groups. So it was not just another Crusade but like a KKK genocidal slaughter. By the wayu you should follow your own advise. Also you should read up on those dictators and all the rotten stuff they did and maybe you could understand Mel's responce. Also before critisizing someone you should actually see what it is you are critisizing. No before you call the film anti-simetic actually see the film and you would think the critisizm is garbage. Also there were alot of positive Jewish caracters in that movie. Like Marry trying to help her son or Simon who helped Jesus carry his cross and fought back the Roman soilders and the angry mob.

All right then. Let's review shall we? No. 1 You can't even spell intelligent. What does that say about you? Secondly, Mel Gibson does deny the holocaust. Thirdly Mel Gibson is a George W Bush support who thinks that it's good we're in Iraq. Why would anyone think that a war is good? Funny about that. Mel Gibson doesn't have anything intelligent to say. IT WAS A STORY THAT HAS BEEN TOLD HUNDREDS OF TIMES BEFORE AND IS RECITED EVERY DAY FROM THE BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And here's an idea. Let's make a religous film filled with blood and torture for the majority. Yeah, I'm sure Jesus would love that. What I meant by where is the passion? is that why not show the love he had for others? Why not show him healing the lepers, curing the blind, making the crippled walk? Why not show his passion by the way he got incredibly mad at all those animal sacrifice cults? Why not even make it an up-lifting film so that people can follow his example? No, let's not do that. Let's watch him get whipped and tortured and beaten to a pulp. Let's watch him get nails in his hands and feet. Lets see him die. Then let's walk away from the film feeling very happy and up-lifted? I will admit that the crucifixtion was brutal, but they did that to anyone they could back in those days. My major concern is that people are going to bring their kids to the film so they can get the right idea. All of it was just the catholic principle. Make people feel guilty. We shouldn't feel guilty. We should learn from it. So thank you for YOUR intelligent insight. And I'm glad you feel I should slit my wrists because, quite frankly, you'll say that to the wrong person one day. So thank you and your numerous spelling errors and illogical statements. I feel up-lifted now.

Seriously calm down. We are debating not screaming our heads off like 2 year olds. Also I did not insult you so why are you attacking me. Isn't it sad that instead of debating like logical people we have to scream and insult people. You sound like this to me: your a stupid head, hehe you also have bad grameer and I'm right and your wrong so I do not have to present evidence on my opinon. Please. This is nationstates not kindegarden. By the way I wish to thank you on proving my theory it is impossible to have a uplifting and intelligent debate. By the way you left wing liberals say that you are champions of free speach but your not letting someone state their opinions on the death of Chris. Also I do not see why you can throw elephant sh*t on the virgin Mary but you can?t make a film about Jesus Christ broadcasting his message of peace. Can anyone say hypocrite.

No. 1 You said I should follow my own advice. Basically you just saud there that I should slit my own wrists. I find that a little insulting. Tit for tat my dear Watson. Please, next time you insult my intelligence and tell me to slit my wrists, make sure you say it with as much tact as possible. Sound like a 2-year old do I? May I remind you of this:

You sound like this to me: your a stupid head, hehe you also have bad grameer and I'm right and your wrong so I do not have to present evidence on my opinon.

That one sounds like a two-year old throwing a tantrum at me... Any once again, you're wrong. It is possible to have an intelligent up-lifting debate. It just appears when someone expresses their opinion in a less politically correct way as myself you come along and throw mud at me. I am not saying Mel Gibson didn't have the right to make the Passion of Christ. But I don't have to pretend to like it. I think the main problem I have with it is that you can get a bible from almost anywhere and read about the love God and Jesus Christ has for us all, or you can pay $5 for a movie ticket to watch disturbing pictures of the man who gave his life for us being brutally beaten and killed. Yes it happened but I don't think his horrible death was the point of it all. I think, for some inexplicable reason it was for love. Perhaps I was a little bit annoyed at you and that's why I thought I would over-emphasize my point. My point is Mel Gibson is making millions of dollars off some one else's message. In a different world this might be an offense of law. I will let Mel state his opinions on the death of Christ but I do not have to like them or agree with them. You've heard what I've said about it being for love. Mel doesn't show that love very well. That's why I object to all the gore in that film because it wasn't justified in getting the real message across. And I've seen Kill Bill. Now I've let you say your opinions. I haven't blocked them out. I haven't not let you say them. But here is the thing that you right-wing conservatives ignore when it comes down to it. I don't have to agree with it. I do not have to like what you say. I can choose to ignore you or confront you on the issue. I have paid you respect by even listening to you. I can see where you are coming from. I understand it. But I don't like it. I don't have to like it. And Passion of Christ doesn't seem like a message of peace. I cannot see any message in it whatsoever. It just seems like a lot of people object to hippies in Roman times. Because that's what Jesus was in those times. A hippie. He wore sandals, he walked everywhere, he loved everyone, he gave protest to what he thought was wrong. Face it, he was a hippie. I respect and admire him for that. Same way I respect Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and many other people who spread messages of love. And yes, I can say hypocrite.

You nauseate me and I know Jesus was left but stop whining and you were flamebatting in the first place so don?t give me that crap that I am being childish.

You nauseate me and I know Jesus was left but stop whining and you were flamebatting in the first place so don?t give me that crap that I am being childish.

I admire men like this who can give such an intelligent response. Lost for words Yugoslavia?

won't you guys shut up and stop acting like babies. God Yugo said this but Darlokonia said that blah blah blah and bitch bitch bitch. Dear god. :roll:

won't you guys shut up and stop acting like babies. God Yugo said this but Darlokonia said that blah blah blah and bitch bitch bitch. Dear god. :roll:

I apoligize.


But he started it....



Baby...

I'm sorry to. Let us start over.

Face it the Jewish temple leaders, jewish military and sadistic Roman soilders wanted him dead so like a slave for fear of a rebellion, Pilate slavishly followed orders. So to blame it all one the romans is a historical inaccuracy. Also yes Pilate was brutal but he did not see a reason to kill Jesus. Rather it was the elite that saw him as a threat. Seriously read the Bible.

I have read the Bible. I'm saying I think the Bible is INACCURATE. Pilate would not have "slavishly" followed anyone. The Bible speaks of how before Jesus' death, Pilate had executed THOUSANDS of Jews. Why would one more have made any difference?

I'm not "blaming it all on the Romans". I'm sure that Jesus' Jewish rivals played a role in getting him killed- if he indeed existed and was killed. However, it's historically inaccurate for YOU to "blame it all on the Jews" because the Bible says so. The historical facts don't line up. The Priests didn't have the authority to give Pilate orders. Period.

Ohh now I see this tactic you can't debate me so you have to insult me and call me a anti-semite.

At what point did I call you an anti-semite? You just QUOTED the post. The word semite wasn't even used. Not only that, I barely mentioned YOU. I focused most of my critique on the Bible being historically inaccurate. The only thing I said about you was I thought you were wrong. The fact that you now accuse me of accusing you of being an anti-semite makes me wonder whether you're just an idiot or trying to avoid my points.

Besides I did not say the Jews were resposible I just said the elite were for fear the peasents would want rights.

And what's your proof? The Bible?

God read all of the posts before you make such outragous statements. Don't be such a noob.

Don't be such an illiterate dumbass.

Don't be such an illiterate dumbass.

Oh isn't it nice to have someone with such a extensive vocabulary. Man I feel so enlightened. Suddenly I feel the passions is evil and SHOULD be banned (sarcasm thick as cement). Thank you have opened my eyes. You sound like the next Einstein.

Don't be such an illiterate dumbass.

Oh isn't it nice to have someone with such a extensive vocabulary. Man I feel so enlightened. Suddenly I feel the passions is evil and SHOULD be banned (sarcasm thick as cement). Thank you have opened my eyes. You sound like the next Einstein.

Again, you're being an illiterate dumbass. At no point have I said that the Passion is evil, OR should be banned.

I urge you to actually read my posts before "responding" to them.

Of course, this necessitates you extricating your cranium from your rectum.

Hope that vocabulary was extensive enough.

I really wish people would stop using the Bible to justify everything they do such as banning homosexual marriges. Really there is nothing 'wrong' about homosexuality and they should be able to get married. I agree with Micheal Moore on this and I think that conservitave bible-thumpers should want more homosexuals. The more gay men, the more women for them! But I'm getting off track here. I think that the Passion Of Christ is just going to breed more hate among different religions and that's quite bad. It is a bit anti-semitic in the aspect of the Jews crucifying Christ but I think a lot of people who hadn't seen the miracles of Christ would have thought he was a looney. But that's just my thoughts on it anyway...

It is just a movie. I saw it and I have grown more respect for diffrent religons. In fact Jesus was a jew so it is stupid and pointless to use those movie for anti-semitism. Also it is very hypocritical that it is free speech to throw elephant crap on the virgin mary but it is bad to make a film about Jesus. This is America and we are renowed for free speech. You can't go around saying I don't like this so it should not be shown. That kind of thinking leads to dictatorships and has really bad results. So since we live in America it should be shown for our love of free speech.

Don't be such an illiterate dumbass.

Oh isn't it nice to have someone with such a extensive vocabulary. Man I feel so enlightened. Suddenly I feel the passions is evil and SHOULD be banned (sarcasm thick as cement). Thank you have opened my eyes. You sound like the next Einstein.

Again, you're being an illiterate dumbass. At no point have I said that the Passion is evil, OR should be banned.

I urge you to actually read my posts before "responding" to them.

Of course, this necessitates you extricating your cranium from your rectum.

Hope that vocabulary was extensive enough.

Gee isn't that nice you have to insult my character and throw out accusations about me with no proof. Man you must be a great debator. By the way your words are like Shakespeare to me. By the way when you talk to me you sound like this: i hate you and your gay hehehe. Please this is not 5th grade this is nationstates.

Don't be such an illiterate dumbass.

Oh isn't it nice to have someone with such a extensive vocabulary. Man I feel so enlightened. Suddenly I feel the passions is evil and SHOULD be banned (sarcasm thick as cement). Thank you have opened my eyes. You sound like the next Einstein.

Again, you're being an illiterate dumbass. At no point have I said that the Passion is evil, OR should be banned.

I urge you to actually read my posts before "responding" to them.

Of course, this necessitates you extricating your cranium from your rectum.

Hope that vocabulary was extensive enough.

Gee isn't that nice you have to insult my character

When did I say anything about your character?

and throw out accusations about me with no proof.

Such as? Keep in mind, you continue to maintain I accused you of anti-semitism- a charge with no basis in reality. I'd say, at best, this is a case the pot calling the kettle black. (I, of course, don't think I've accused you of anything without proof, but that's another matter.)

Man you must be a great debator.

We aren't currently "debating" anything. You continue to ignore my posts and refuse to respond to my questions.

By the way your words are like Shakespeare to me.

Ok... :? Is that a compliment?

By the way when you talk to me you sound like this: i hate you and your gay hehehe.

The fact that you're acting like an idiot and are either refusing to respond to what I'm saying (or pretending to not understand me) is not my problem. I have responded to your "points". You continue to dodge them. You'd probably get much more out of this conversation if you'd actually READ what I'm saying and responded to that, rather than responding to things I HAVEN'T said. Just a thought.

Please this is not 5th grade this is nationstates.

Thanks for the tip. Although I'm pretty sure most 5th graders can read. Perhaps you should try it.

It is just a movie. I saw it and I have grown more respect for diffrent religons. In fact Jesus was a jew so it is stupid and pointless to use those movie for anti-semitism. Also it is very hypocritical that it is free speech to throw elephant crap on the virgin mary but it is bad to make a film about Jesus. This is America and we are renowed for free speech. You can't go around saying I don't like this so it should not be shown. That kind of thinking leads to dictatorships and has really bad results. So since we live in America it should be shown for our love of free speech.

True it is just a movie. But I really think it's sending the wrong message. I don't really see how you can have respect for different religions when it only features one. Jewish. It is a film made for Christians though. Sure Mary is Jewish in it and so is Joe (although that's highly debatable. Here's my opinion on it. All the names in the bible: Eziekel, Noah, Jobe... Then Mary and Joe. Mary-Jean and Joe-Bob. Pretty red-neckish names if you ask me. But moving on.) But my idea of it being anti-semitic is because it's aimed soley at the Christians. Not any other religion. No real praise for the Jews in it other than crucifying Jesus. Where has anyone flung elephant crap at the Virgin Mary? And got a newscast for ya bub. The world doesn't revolve around America. I live in Australia so I don't really like listening to some of your American crap about how good a country is. I am not nationalistic in the first place. But let's leave that for another discussion. I'm not saying it shouldn't be shown. That's censorship and that's wrong. But by the same token you could have a Nazi rally and you shouldn't say, "that's bad and it shouldn't happen." I really think that if Jesus was here among us he wouldn't like the film. He would be wincing at the buckets of blood and holding his scars. He would probably say, "That wasn't my point. My point was no matter who you are, you will be loved." But once again, that's just MY thoughts.

It was a good movie.

It is just a movie. I saw it and I have grown more respect for diffrent religons. In fact Jesus was a jew so it is stupid and pointless to use those movie for anti-semitism. Also it is very hypocritical that it is free speech to throw elephant crap on the virgin mary but it is bad to make a film about Jesus. This is America and we are renowed for free speech. You can't go around saying I don't like this so it should not be shown. That kind of thinking leads to dictatorships and has really bad results. So since we live in America it should be shown for our love of free speech.

True it is just a movie. But I really think it's sending the wrong message. I don't really see how you can have respect for different religions when it only features one. Jewish. It is a film made for Christians though. Sure Mary is Jewish in it and so is Joe (although that's highly debatable. Here's my opinion on it. All the names in the bible: Eziekel, Noah, Jobe... Then Mary and Joe. Mary-Jean and Joe-Bob. Pretty red-neckish names if you ask me. But moving on.) But my idea of it being anti-semitic is because it's aimed soley at the Christians. Not any other religion. No real praise for the Jews in it other than crucifying Jesus. Where has anyone flung elephant crap at the Virgin Mary? And got a newscast for ya bub. The world doesn't revolve around America. I live in Australia so I don't really like listening to some of your American crap about how good a country is. I am not nationalistic in the first place. But let's leave that for another discussion. I'm not saying it shouldn't be shown. That's censorship and that's wrong. But by the same token you could have a Nazi rally and you shouldn't say, "that's bad and it shouldn't happen." I really think that if Jesus was here among us he wouldn't like the film. He would be wincing at the buckets of blood and holding his scars. He would probably say, "That wasn't my point. My point was no matter who you are, you will be loved." But once again, that's just MY thoughts.

Fine your opinion and I respect that.

The fact that you're acting like an idiot and are either refusing to respond to what I'm saying (or pretending to not understand me) is not my problem. I have responded to your "points". You continue to dodge them. You'd probably get much more out of this conversation if you'd actually READ what I'm saying and responded to that, rather than responding to things I HAVEN'T said. Just a thought.

Sorry for that sometimes you see I can?t hang around the computer all the time so I am selective on the posts I can respond to. Also was in a debate with another nation but now I can debate with you.
[quote=Yugolsavia]It is just a movie. I saw it and I have grown more respect for diffrent religons. In fact Jesus was a jew so it is stupid and pointless to use those movie for anti-semitism. Also it is very hypocritical that it is free speech to throw elephant crap on the virgin mary but it is bad to make a film about Jesus. This is America and we are renowed for free speech. You can't go around saying I don't like this so it should not be shown. That kind of thinking leads to dictatorships and has really bad results. So since we live in America it should be shown for our love of free speech.

tag

tag

The fact that you're acting like an idiot and are either refusing to respond to what I'm saying (or pretending to not understand me) is not my problem. I have responded to your "points". You continue to dodge them. You'd probably get much more out of this conversation if you'd actually READ what I'm saying and responded to that, rather than responding to things I HAVEN'T said. Just a thought.

Sorry for that sometimes you see I can?t hang around the computer all the time so I am selective on the posts I can respond to.

I'd be a lot more sympathetic if you hadn't said things like the following:

God read all of the posts before you make such outragous statements. Don't be such a noob.

If you're not going to read what I write, don't bother "responding" in the first place. And you certainly have no authority to lecture me on "reading all the posts" when you yourself can't be bothered.

I apologized before what more do you want.

I officially declare this thread to be flaming

Yes, but it still remains unlocked. Interesting.

Perhaps if it was a word game it would be retired.

How am I flambatting I just stated my opinon. Funny someone can make fun of my religon and that is acceptable but saying you loved a movie is bad. Please this is the ultimate hypocracy.

How am I flambatting I just stated my opinon. Funny someone can make fun of my religon and that is acceptable but saying you loved a movie is bad. Please this is the ultimate hypocracy.

tag

How am I flambatting I just stated my opinon. Funny someone can make fun of my religon and that is acceptable but saying you loved a movie is bad. Please this is the ultimate hypocracy.

Guess who's back? :lol: Listen Yugo, I've sat back for now listening to your crap but I think it's time to start our debate again. Obviously I can't qoute every thing you said that was totally wrong so I'll just recap a bit, shall I? When in the history of this forum has anyone made fun of your religion or thrown elephant sh*t at the Virgin Mary? I for one am just trying to tell people Mel Gibson's intentions were not as pure aas he claims. For one I would just like to say this. How is it right to make millions and millions of dollars about a movie that involves a person who many people consider their saviour get whipped, beaten and crucified. The blood drew the audiences, not the message (which there wasn't). Don't you think if you were going to make a film about one of the most influential relgious figures you would show a little respect instead of watching him bleed to death from his wounds?

The world doesn't revolve around America


Thank you I'm glad someone had the balls to say it Kokusbitus.

Fine your opinion and I respect that.


Finally you respect someone else's opinion.

It is just a movie. I saw it and I have grown more respect for diffrent religons. In fact Jesus was a jew so it is stupid and pointless to use those movie for anti-semitism.


How in the blue hell can you gain respect for different religions. It was based on one that a few others can relate to. It is creating so much seperation at the moment. The Jews and the Catholics and the Protestants and the Athiests and need I go on? Violence is not justified in religous films. Because that isn't what religion is about. I really feel sorry for the God up there. He gets blamed for so much sh*t. Hitler, Ku Klux Klan, The Mormon, the Jehovas Witnesses...

By the way when you talk to me you sound like this: i hate you and your gay hehehe. Please this is not 5th grade this is nationstates.


Up to your old tricks? Please insult people originally.

while this movie may be historically accurate for you, please to remember that the vast majority of people on the planet (even though it is true that at this point in time christianity has the most people of any single religion) are not Christian, and therefore their beliefs about "history" may very well differ from yours. Please to remember, religion is belief, and belief is not proven.

~*~LW~*~

If you don't like it, too bad, God didn't ask your opinion when He wrote the Bible, small wonder then, that Gibson didn't consult you first either.


PS. God didn't write the bible. Men did. And it's been translated hundreds and hundreds of times over the past few thousand years (starting through the Old testament).

Sorry to disappoint you.

~*~LW~*~
wolfpagan.com

hey I thought this was locked. Anyways sorry I am late.

Is this grave digging?

what do you mean.

Resurrecting dead topics.

Oh, the irony.

Bad, Conceptualists. Naughty, naughty NationState. Dragging this thing back from the dead. No!

*goes off to look for a rolled up newspaper*

Well might as well kick off the fun. Wow to people that do not agree with me this must be like nightmare on elm street were the bad guy is resurected. Well I guss this topic must be immortal unless the mods decide to lock it.

I liked it, and lot's of my non-christian friends liked it. Even though they're not christian they liked the fact that it showed what us humans are really like.

tag

How am I flambatting I just stated my opinon. Funny someone can make fun of my religon and that is acceptable but saying you loved a movie is bad. Please this is the ultimate hypocracy.

Guess who's back? :lol: Listen Yugo, I've sat back for now listening to your crap but I think it's time to start our debate again. Obviously I can't qoute every thing you said that was totally wrong so I'll just recap a bit, shall I? When in the history of this forum has anyone made fun of your religion or thrown elephant sh*t at the Virgin Mary? I for one am just trying to tell people Mel Gibson's intentions were not as pure aas he claims. For one I would just like to say this. How is it right to make millions and millions of dollars about a movie that involves a person who many people consider their saviour get whipped, beaten and crucified. The blood drew the audiences, not the message (which there wasn't). Don't you think if you were going to make a film about one of the most influential relgious figures you would show a little respect instead of watching him bleed to death from his wounds?

The world doesn't revolve around America


Thank you I'm glad someone had the balls to say it Kokusbitus.

Fine your opinion and I respect that.


Finally you respect someone else's opinion.

It is just a movie. I saw it and I have grown more respect for diffrent religons. In fact Jesus was a jew so it is stupid and pointless to use those movie for anti-semitism.


How in the blue hell can you gain respect for different religions. It was based on one that a few others can relate to. It is creating so much seperation at the moment. The Jews and the Catholics and the Protestants and the Athiests and need I go on? Violence is not justified in religous films. Because that isn't what religion is about. I really feel sorry for the God up there. He gets blamed for so much sh*t. Hitler, Ku Klux Klan, The Mormon, the Jehovas Witnesses...

By the way when you talk to me you sound like this: i hate you and your gay hehehe. Please this is not 5th grade this is nationstates.


Up to your old tricks? Please insult people originally.

In my opinon yes the Romans did crucify crist but the Israli elite did play a part in his death. Besides it is just a movie and by sencuring it you are talking Mel Gimbsons right to freedom of speach.

Bad, Conceptualists. Naughty, naughty NationState. Dragging this thing back from the dead. No!

*goes off to look for a rolled up newspaper*

Hey, I didn't resurected it. Yugo did. Look at the times.

*deftly parries newspaper*