The Passion Of The Christ

No, he was pointing out the Jesus was killed by "the ancient Jews". What do you think? Do you agree with this statement?[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 02-24-2004]

Hey, I might have been partially correct afterall in regards to the Greek language, according to one source:The New Republic

quote:

---

And while Aramaic was indeed the daily language of ancient Jews in Galilee and Judea, Latin would scarcely have figured at all. When the Jewish high priest and the Roman prefect spoke to each other, they would have used Greek, which was the English of antiquity. And Pilate's troops, employees of Rome, were not "Romans." They were Greek-speaking local gentiles on the imperial payroll. Gibson's pious evocations of historicity rang more than a little hollow. How much homework had he actually done?

---

I see your point CA.He was betrayd by some Jewish prists, and crusified by roman authorities. Indeed, the priests were "ancient jews", thus one could say Jesus was murderd by "ancient jews".You are saying that the generalization, implies a universailty to it. As in: "The jews killd him." And I agree! I was defending Godsmac who you lambasted, by saying that he had a similar point. That being, that since Jews were the people who were in that area, who else was gonna kill him? Of course it was ancient jews, there was no other option.But ya, I see what you are saying, and I think the generalization is a bad thing and leads to stereotypes. I was more irritated with the way you attacked godsmac, I thought it was a bit unfair. You could have simply pointed out your position in clearer terms and I am sure he would have even agreed with you.

Wow, what a vitriolic response.However, my point was not who killed Jesus. My point is that it doesn't matter who killed him. In reality, we all killed him (that's right, even we alive today). If it wasn't for our mortal, sinning ways, he would not have had to sacrifice himself to redeem us. He came to save all of us, and his blood is on all of us.You have a good point about "the ancient Jews." Perhaps I should have said "some" or "a few" ancient Jews. I only focused on them because the discussion was whether the movie was antisemitic, not anti-Roman. As for the Romans, yes, they actually carried out the execution. Yes, the Romans were incredibly cruel oppressors in their own right and are guilty in their own right. But, I hold nothing against the Jews or Romans as peoples, or the individual Jews or Romans who had anything to do with Jesus' death. If it wasn't them it would have been someone else. In which case I guess you would be saying this was anti-whoeverelseitwas. Jesus himself forgave them while he was still hanging on the cross. Which was the whole point of his coming into the world anyway - love and forgiveness.You come here spouting vitriol about a movie that relates a Bible story, accusing it of being antisemitic when you haven't even seen the movie yet. I understand the movie supposedly portrays a lot of violence, probably more than what the Bible tells us, but did you ever think that maybe the director is just trying to portray the incredible pain, both emotional and physical, that he believes Jesus endured in the hours leading to his death? He may be trying to show the inhuman sacrifice that was made for us. He may be trying to portray the infinite amount of love and forgiveness it took to make that sacrifice. I doubt very much the director is trying to spark antisemitic sentiment.We will see after the release tomorrow.

See message 34.As for the violence in the film, why must it be about who instigated or perpetrated the violence? When I read the Gospels, it is not a message about who committed the violence against Jesus that comes across to me. The message that comes across is of the inhuman torture suffered by a human body in order to redeem me from my sins because of Jesus' love for me. The fact that Jesus forgave those who committed this atrocity against him is the real message, not the violence itself.

I did generalize. That is sometimes not a wise thing to do. It tends to create ambiguity and confusion. My intentions were not to stereotype, but as you said, to point out that it could or would have been any group of people Jesus might have come among. You're right - my thoughts are that the "nationality, creed, race, sex, of his killers is inconsequential to the story." The violence itself is what is consequential because it shows Jesus' sacrifice in a graphic way that perhaps we will feel in our guts when we see the film.

Perhaps we should move this to a different thread, but on what grounds do you believe this to be the case? Luke is presumed to be a late 1st century production, authored half a century after the purported event, by an apologist who witnessed nothing.The Passion story is a confused second hand account lacking in credibility and wholly devoid of evidence.

Perhaps. But I do not claim that the Bible is a scientific treatise. If debating a scientific theory, I would demand evidence. If debating a faith-based issue, I would look into my heart. A film based on a matter of Faith is obviously not scientific in nature. So why demand evidence?

Consequent, I once again point out to you the fervant and zealous disregard you have for Jesus Christ, God Incarnate. If you died tomorrow, regardless of the intellectual claptrap which you believe, God would still love you enough to give you yet another chance to accept Him. If you mouthed your smug assertions to Him at that point, all of your humanistic evidence would be for naught. You Do have a right not to believe, but you are wasting your time trying to convince people that God is not real. I still love you, though!

Got it. If your heart tells you that "the ancient Jews" did it, why worry about a lack of evidence? And if the stories were being formulated at a time when it made perfect sense to appease the Romans and demonize the Jews, why give credence to such a context? And if the story has a long, incendiary history of promulgating antisemitic attacks, why should anyone let that disturb their Christian heart? Let's just close our eyes and open our heart to the blood and gore of Gibson's Passion. Perhaps next week we can gather again and talk about how Cristians killed Martin Luther King.

The story hardly promulgates antisemitic attacks. Granted, bad people and some bad Christians in the past have promulgated antisemitic attacks in the name of the Bible, but they were wrong. The New Testament does not call for such attacks against Jews or anyone else. And, by the way, it does bother my Christian heart. It also bothers my heart that a story's message of God's sacrifice for His people is twisted out of shape into a message of prejudice against a particular people. You say it is antisemitic, but perhaps your real motive is to incite antiChristian sentiment.

Really? OK. Let's see if we can agree who some of these "bad people and some bad Christians" were:

• A Catholic Timeline of Events
• A Comparison of Canon Law and Nazi Measures
• Martin Luter: The Jews and Their Lies
• Goebbels and Hitler

This is, of course, only a partial list. Let me ask you a question: have you ever read anything on the history of pogroms? Perhaps you would benefit from reading

• Constantine's Sword: : The Church and the Jews -- A History

Crashfrog, at this point I will have to agree with you. We do not live in a theocracy, so for me to force you to believe in a set of morals, even if they WERE God ordained, is not constitutional. I am not one for legislation of morality, and at this point you as an atheist have won the argument. Perhaps the reason that you consistently push my credibility into a corner when we debate is to show me how atheists view a Judeo-Christian system of morality attempting to impose a theocracy on them. The core of this issue is even now as we speak in the Supreme Court. One side interprets the law as respectful of all views and that society(humans) determine the standard. The other side alleges "viewpoint discrimination" and states that their absolute truth, where "God" determines the standard, is being booted out of the process. If we as a people choose to govern based on our own human reasoning as the judge, so be it. As a Christian, I will continue my free speech rights to convince people of a better way to live where Gods Spirit guides human wisdom. Mel Gibson is doing the same thing with his film. We believe that Jesus is real! Anyhow, Froggie, I defer to you....[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-25-2004]

While I have not read this book as of yet, I did scan the reviews, and one stood out: The reason that the death on the cross is important is because it is this action that is central to the beliefs within Christianity that Jesus bore our sins and became the sacrifice for all. It is ludicrous to minimize the importance of this Holy act. What would the church do? Rewrite the book to be more P.C. ? Hardly. We will NOT have the scriptures reduced to the opinions of men. The scriptures are inerrent.[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-25-2004]

Tacitus (A.D. c. 55-A.D c.117, Roman historian mentions "christus" "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its orgin, suffered the extreme penalty a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt
*I might also add I got this on a apologist site so consider the source.I dont know if this text is verified or not, but it is a non source mention of Christ and In my own opinion can be considered evidence. However meager it may be. The story of The Passion contains Jews as well as Romans and IMO any antisemitic messages are not the focus of the story, Just as the Indians massacred the 7th Cav is not Anti Indian when the story of Gen. Custer is told. Anytime a story is told there is usually a antagonist and protagonist . Some one is bound to get offended que no?[This message has been edited by 1.61803, 02-25-2004][This message has been edited by 1.61803, 02-25-2004][This message has been edited by 1.61803, 02-25-2004]