Saw I finally saw the Passion of the Christ

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword


i was going to let this discussion die out...but DONT try to presume what i have and have looked up...DONT presume that i do not know what christianity is... DONT presume that you know anything more about this subject and DONT presume you know what i know about translations errors, ancient texts, historial rape and misinterpetion of events in history in general...

that is not only very arrogent but also is disrepectfull towards me

you have shown you don't by what you have posted here...

so I dont' have to presume

you show yourself by your words..

you were flat out wrong in your statement that we just have translations and retranslations of works from 1000s of years ago, and a lot of your other statements are similiarly unknowledgeable

now I dont' disrespect you for not knowing.. most don't, including most Christians

I just encourage you to learn about it, and also to not go arround presenting your figurings as fact

you might cynically say that everything changed in the first ~100 years.. and then basically stayed the same after that...

but understand that some won't agree....

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kidicious

No one knows for sure what someone was thinking thousands of years ago.

true

all we have is their words..

and as far as that goes.. all we have are the words of people who knew people who knew Jesus (very few claim nowadays that the gospels were written by people who knew Him, since there is no evidence for this, and there is some against it)

and we don't have His actual words (except maybe as a source that the writers used.. which many theologians claim is the source for Mathew/Mark/Luke)

so yes

but you can say the same about 100 years ago, or often about 10...

and actually I am often not sure what I was thinking 1 year ago...

in all these cases all you have are words.. (and in some recent cases video..), so that is what you have to work with

Jon Miller

[DeathByTheSword]

but your point that the Bible has been hacked to peices for 2k years is obviously false

this is something that can still be debated but as you said needs referneces

and your statement that the death of Christ is something that only Mel (or a small group) that beleives similiarly is false

here you miss understood me...i ment to say like i explained better later on that people uses more the stories the hear about what happened to christ that even the bible...stories which are highly influental to human emotions and convictions...this is the same for the bible it is written down not from a first hand account but from stories people heard...even first hand accounts are not objective...thus if the writers had some personel problem with jews he could have said that jews wanted jesus dead instead of certain people that just happened to be jew...

[JohnT]

IMO, anybody who argues for/against a movie/song/whatever that they haven't even experienced is less than a fool.

Why even bother discussing this with Berzerker, people? He hasn't even bothered to see the film and is allowing other peoples words to form his attitudes w/o the necessary personal experience of actually watching the film that would make his arguments meaningful.

[Jon Miller]

have you read Mathew?

it was written by a jew, for jews.. (it seems to me, and most theologians)..

as I said, I am not going to do your googling for you

I have done it a number of times here on apolyton, and I looked for 20 minutes or so this time...

but previous times I have always ended up spending most of day looking stuff up (partly because it is so interesting), and I don't want to do that today

I have physics to do

Jon Miller

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
in all these cases all you have are words.. (and in some recent cases video..), so that is what you have to work with

Jon Miller

I'm sure you know that the historical meaning of words is sometimes lost.

[DeathByTheSword]

matthew

Writing a decade or so after the second temple was destroyed in the failed jewish uprising....matthew was determined to explain to the jewish world just who jesus was and to show judaism that there was an alternative to the rabby tradition that was developing at that time (i.e that salvation through jesus was possible)


matthaw uses most of marks stories which also already flawed because he has his infromation fromt he stories of paul...interesting is that jesus was a carpeter in pauls orginal stories but mark changed this in to the son of a carpenter...showing that jesus did have a lowly job but rose about his expectations...also interesting to know that the ressurection isnt yet in marks original story but in later version is it somehow.

[Jon Miller]

generally you were what your father was in that time

so Jesus was a carpenter, as His father was

or do you assume that Jesus just didn't do anything until he was 30 (33?) and started teaching

and most theolgians think that Mark, Luke, and Mathew all share a similiar source, which they call Q

and while the ressurection is not in the earliest manuscripts of Mark, it is in the other gospels.. and is crucial to Paul's theology (which is the founding theology of the Christian church, the plurality of books of the NT are written (or claimed to be written, some theologians don't think a few were written by Paul...) by Paul who lived in the time of Christ, but wasn't active until after His death)

Jon Miller

[DeathByTheSword]

oh btw i made a mistake mark wasnt a follower of paul but of peter... matew and like you are saying luke used marks stories for there own...mathew changed it for the jews and luke changed it for the gentiles...if we are talking about luke...if is funny to see that he uses a local soldier (atleast not roman one) to scourge jesus and mark (before him and for a different audience) used a roman one...this is because during the time luke wrote his piece the romans were beating up christians and luke also wrote for a roman audience...this is also the moment that jesus kingdom is first depicted as not of this world to not enraged the romans more

[GeoModder]

/me prods DBTS with a cross discussion stick.

[DeathByTheSword]

off topic of the offtopic topic
@ geomodder i think pollution and health in civ4 go perfectly together

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by hexagonian

And the fury about the supposedly anti-semite slant of 'Passion' differs in what way???

I'm not sure I follow you (perhaps since the word "slant" is unknown to me...)...

I pointed out the intolerance of religious groups by drawing a parallell to the release of The Last Temptation of Christ... Mainly because I don't understand what's so controversial about it...

What's your point?

Carolus

[JohnT]

In the way he used it, slant=bias.

It also means "to lean at a non-perpendicular angle, to lean diagonally", as in "The ladder was against the wall when it started slanting to the left, which caused my brother to fall."

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, wow, this thread took off!

and most protestant denominations don't focus much on Christs physical suffering (in fact, I think that they focus more on the ressurection then do catholics)

Yes, the way of the cross is uniquely Catholic. I loved it when I was first introduced to it, and it's one of the things I really like about the Catholic church. One of the beefs about Gibson's movie, is not where it starts, but where it ends, before the resurrection.

[Ben Kenobi]

umm, you know that our current Bible is based upon the ones we have from 1st and 2nd AD, before there was a Catholic church, right?

Well, my question for you is when does the Catholic church begin? I find that a curious statement, given that the Catholic church traces their history all the way back to the apostles.

and before there was a catholic church, most had agreed that the gospels, like the one of St Thomas were not legit

Who agreed? Was it one of the ecumenical councils of the Catholic church? You can't avoid the question of canonicity and decline to accept the authority that established the canon of the church.

in fact, our Bible today is just like the one from 1st and 2nd century AD

Who's bible? Until they met to decide the canon of the church, the bible in the form that we have it now, did not exist. Yes, the individual books of the New Testament did exist, but they were not put together, at least not in the form to which we have become accustomed.

and generally the best way to handle them is to read many translations...

Or to translate, as they do now, from a source as close to the original as possible, rather than a translation of a translation. Rather than translation from the Septuagint to the Vulgate and then to English, you bypass the Vulgate altogether.

and if you want to study the Gospels that people felt at the time were not canonical, well that is also aviailable, and I think could be valuable (as well as a historical study of what was going on at the time)

It is a very good question, and very interesting too, to look at things like the Didache which were considered by the council, yet not accepted as canon by the church.