How far did the Gibson apple fall from the tree?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Strangelove -

You accused me of hypocrisy and immediately ran away from that charge when challenged and refuted (what else is new?).

Who ran away? You made a sweeping bigoted proclamation of your disrespect for Christians and I revealed it for what it was. You made no rebuttal.

But instead of an apology or an admission of being wrong, you rambled onto more shaky ground in the land of Strangelove by implying I want it made illegal for people of your "intellect" to practice medicine. I hope you're better at medicine than you are at Christianity...

That is what you said, and apparently most of the witnesses agree with me. Let's go over it again: You pronounce your disdain for all Christians. I point out the basic bigotry of your statement. You then announce that anyone having these beliefs is unfit to practice medicine. I reply by pointing out that your implied desire to cut off a segment of the population from the profession of Medicine is somewhat ironic coming from someone who calls himself a libertarian. What could be more plain? Where is the need for rebuttal or apology?

The term "collective guilt" is yours, not Gibson's or mine. What Christians believe in isn't "collective guilt" per se. Christians believe that we all have the capacity for evil, that we all express this capacity throughout our lives, and that the people who executed Chirst are all like us and we're all like them. When Mel Gibson says that he killed Christ he doesn't mean that literally. He means that he isn't perfect, and that he has no special claim for moral superiority.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The problem is the four don;t always agree or sitck to one story.

If they get the basics right, then you can prove Jesus existed more easily.

Of course, much of this writing happens after the first jewish revolt when the Romans came down hard, and when the christians were trying to spread to all sectors of Roman society.

So? The same thing was happening in Jewish societies at the same time... and even before the first revolt. Remember, you had many Jewish communities in the Roman Empire and only Jerusalem revolted and was crushed. The rest stayed obedient.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If they get the basics right, then you can prove Jesus existed more easily.

Believers would accept a single gospel-so this is a non-issue. Besides, the counterproof of this is that other gospels were excluded. So they did not do it simply to get more voices.

So? The same thing was happening in Jewish societies at the same time... and even before the first revolt. Remember, you had many Jewish communities in the Roman Empire and only Jerusalem revolted and was crushed. The rest stayed obedient.

How the hell would small urban communities rebel? they would have been exterminated to a man and woman if they had been stupid enough to try it. Besides, the jews did not stay quite for too long, and the Romans had to come down again, even harder.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by GePap


So basically uo buy the notion the Romans killed Jesus cause the Pharasees told them to? OK then Mr. Gibson.

Did I say that? You really need to lift your game son.

Can you elaborate on your rather extraordinary contention that an legal execution by political authorities can't be murder?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Believers would accept a single gospel-so this is a non-issue. Besides, the counterproof of this is that other gospels were excluded. So they did not do it simply to get more voices.

They need to convert people. And some gospels were excluded because they didn't like the other stuff they had to say.

How the hell would small urban communities rebel? they would have been exterminated to a man and woman if they had been stupid enough to try it. Besides, the jews did not stay quite for too long, and the Romans had to come down again, even harder.

Actually that was when the Christians took over the Roman Empire. Anti-Jewish feeling was all over Christianity at that point.

And Jerusalem was a small urban community.. it rebelled. And besides, the precepts of the Jewish religion always called for obeying the secular authorities up to the extent of the religion.

[Dr Strangelove]

Most likely when the church leaders gathered together during Constantine's reign to establish the common basis of the church the various gospels were being used by different groups of churches throughout the Roman empire. Probably keeping the indiviual gospels intact and seperate instead of consolidating them was a political move, it validated the basic literary foundation of the majority of churches throughout the Empire and avoided the almost certain major conflict that would have ensued had the council attempted to consolidate the 4 books into one.

[Alexander's Horse]

The 4 gospels that were chosen at Nicea are not, and were never intended to be, the last word on the life of Jesus. They were chosen because they were thought to be the best accounts and most useful for instruction on the life and teachings of Jesus. The idea that these were the only accepted accounts came later and sprang from a campaign to establish the authority of the 4 texts chosen. Other christian faiths such as the Copts in Egypt kept other texts alive, like the gospel of Thomas.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap



Sorry boy, but you are the one with an ideological slant-to me the christ myth is no less important than the Mohammed myth- which of course is not the same for you.

The whole controversy here is about the line in Matthew in which Pilate says that the blood of this man is on your hands to the Jewish crowd. Interesingly, Matthew is the ONLY one to say this: so Jon Miller, does this mean this is cannonical and true, even if John, Luke and Mark decided to to mention it. And if it was so important (and Matthew was writen prior to Luke or John), why not metion it at all?

once more you want want the gospels to be all the same

are you an idiot?

if they were all the same there would be no point in all the ones after the first (or whatever)

the writers chose what to go in based upon what they thought was important

the fact that the writer of Matthew thought that it was important was enough to include it in the holy book of Christians, therefore it is important

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

I have discussed this topic with priests, and they say you can be a Christian without even hearing of Jesus, if you live your life in a way that is in accordance with his teachings. He cited Gandhi (a non-christian) as being like any other Christian in the eyes of God.

BC:

Makes me wonder which priests you are talking to. They should be saying that while Ghandi is a morally upright person, unless he has professed faith in Christ, he will not be saved.

Now, you do raise an excellent point. If a man has never been introduced to Christ, in scriptures, or in speaking to a Christian, yet he still lives a moral life in the eyes of God, then God can certainly save him.

However, the key is in the contact. If a person has heard of Christ, yet does not acknowledge him as the Son of God, then he cannot expect to be saved.

Ghandi quoted from scripture on several occasions, yet I do not believe he ever professed faith in Christ. I think your priest does not know Ghandi very well, and assumes that the man never came into contact with Christians, or with scripture.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Can you elaborate on your rather extraordinary contention that an legal execution by political authorities can't be murder?

It's definitional. A legal execution is not and can not be murder. And if you start looking you will find out that NO, the nazi's and Stalin and Mao and whomever were NOT following their laws when they committed their crimes, becuase they violated in all sorts of ways the written laws- simply no one questioned them, and a lot of the killing was simply done out of te spotlight for the very reason that it could simply not be justified legally- and that is also what sham trials (trials that ususally violate the very rules othe system innumerates) are for- to create legal Potemkin villages.

[Ben Kenobi]

If Jesus wanted to serve as a sacrifice, then he's responsible.

Jesus did not want to serve as a sacrifice, but offered himself so that men could be saved. There would be no need for him to give up his life, had we not sinned.

If that was what God and Jesus wanted, they can't blame us

God wants men not to sin at all. Barring that, it took the death of Christ to redeem our sins once and for all.
So yes, we are responsible for the death of Christ.

And the Jews and the Romans should be praised for playing the role desired by both Jesus and God, but they aren't.

Why should they be praised for inadvertently fulfilling the wishes of God? It's not as if they chose to do so.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And Jerusalem was a small urban community.. it rebelled. And besides, the precepts of the Jewish religion always called for obeying the secular authorities up to the extent of the religion.

Jeruslem was a small city, but the Jews made the majority of citizens are were surrounded by a countryside of jews- so don;t be dense Imran- huge difference between jews in a jewish city in a jewish land rebelling and jews in Roman city in a Roman coutnryside rebelling.

As for the precepts of the jewish faith- that faith assumed the "secular" authorites to be jewish- why the Jews rebelled against Greek rule earlier.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


once more you want want the gospels to be all the same

are you an idiot?

if they were all the same there would be no point in all the ones after the first (or whatever)

the writers chose what to go in based upon what they thought was important

the fact that the writer of Matthew thought that it was important was enough to include it in the holy book of Christians, therefore it is important

Jon Miller

Oh lord...

The point Mr. Genius is, one: the Church had more than enough time to, if it wanted, join all the texts (part of the point of the article in the Daily news is that the Church did try- and the attempt fell out of favor).

As for "each author put in what he thought was important" is a good point-against you, not for you. What that means is that each gospel is a specific narrative of its own, with its own feel- since Gibson decided not to film just one gospel, one singular unit with one singuler author, style and voice, that means that Gibson is the one who decided what was important to pick and chose for his movie, which brings up the question why he went with Matthew on the whole "blood libel", and not Luke, Mark, or John, none of which sawthe necessity to add that.

[Ben Kenobi]

The point Mr. Genius is, one: the Church had more than enough time to, if it wanted, join all the texts (part of the point of the article in the Daily news is that the Church did try- and the attempt fell out of favor).

Why?

One of the strengths of the Gospels is that you have differing perspectives, different styles of writing, different purposes and target audiences for each Gospel.

each author put in what he thought was important" is a good point-against you, not for you. What that means is that each gospel is a specific narrative of its own, with its own feel

True, but the fact that they all agree on the basic facts of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, ought to reinforce our confidence in all three events. For if each Gospel parroted the other, one could be much more suspicious.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by GePap


So basically uo buy the notion the Romans killed Jesus cause the Pharasees told them to? OK then Mr. Gibson.

Did I say that?

You should learn from me son.

IT'S JUST A FREAKIN MOVIE

(which I am not going to see)