The Passion of the Christ

Remove all ads!

Congrats Chandos...

You have just set the record for witty comebacks in a single day I have watched you with something approaching awe.

You've given me something to hope for.

Seriously though...to those of you who continue to insist that simply because you don't believe in God means that you are not a "slave" to any belief system...

 

This film look's so shockingly blasphemous and horribly gory going by the hype.

Man! Gibson really knows how to get bums on seats. Even if his films are about as historically accurate as a fart.

 

That was my thought, too.

Mel? Historically accurate? ROFLMAO

 

Chev. I am pleased that you aren't taking it personally, I would be upset with myself if I had offended you.

How is the Torah not the Law of the Farizees? They may well have come up with some forms of interpreting the Law that was not "the Spirit of the Law", but at that point in history there was no Talmud and no New Testament. What was their Law then? The Torah 100% To help them understand this point Jesus says that "not a single letter will be removed from the Law until all has come to pass". At that point which Law are they both refering to? The Torah.

The point is that the word for God in Hebrew is Elohim not Yahveh (YHWH). Yahveh is a name in as much as Jesus is a name. It makes no sense to say Jesus is Yahveh as much as it makes no sense for me to say Khazraj is Chevalier. Not only is it false (in speech), it's impossible (in reality). Hebrew does not understand "God the Father" etc, because it is blasphemy....

"Before Abraham was, I am". This can be said of Adam too, and I don't remember Adam being claimed divinity for it....

Why? Is my translation that bad? That was what I was taught by the nuns at Catholic school. My point is that the name Yahveh doesn't enter the Greek texts even once. So how is Jesus Yahveh? Yahveh is a word used in the Old Testament, not the New. Jesus is in the New Testament not the Old. Where is the linguistic link across one single text?

This is because it only makes sense to say such a thing in Christianity with a prior belief in Christian doctrine (something Jesus couldn't have had since he wasn't a Christian he was either a Jew or God himself according to some...), it is false in Hebrew and also according to Judaism.

My point is that it is senseless and thus not something Jesus would have said. It may well make sense and be possible in Greek, but I don't think that Jesus spoke Greek...

According to unanimous Jewish opinion over the past 2000 years if he said "Ani Yahveh" meaning "I am Yehveh" then it would be a violation of the first commandment deserving of death. End of argument.

Exactly. And it is a Christian Tradition that says that Jesus is Jehovah. God's commandment came many centuries before and is that there is only one God called Jehovah, not Jesus. It is called the Schema, "Hear O Israel, that our God is Jehovah and He is our One and Only God." I can't see the word Jesus in it...

Precisely what Jesus was saying about the Farizees. The had abandoned the Law, the Torah, by clothing it in meaningless traditions and interpretations that are far from the True meaning of the Law. Something very similar happened when the Christian religion was born...

I think that one needs a lot of study of the Old Testament before one can make claims about it and Jewish history. It always helps to understand Judaism and the Torah correctly before approaching the New Testament, otherwise much of Jesus true reality is lost.

 

OK.

Everyone who thinks that Chev and Khaz have raised the bar "way too high" for any of us to continue to participate in this discussion...raise your hand.

Hmmmm...I thought so. Doesn't leave the rest of us mortals much to talk about, does it?

Looks like rain today.

Whatever...you have a beef with Mel...pony up 35 million of your own money (US dollars, not Australian ) to make your own movie. 76.2$ million on an opening weekend in Feb. sets lots of records, and it is hard to buck the buck even if Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 53%.

Then again, this is a tough issue for me to be objective on, since Theologically I am with agreement with Gibson on most things.

"Braveheart" rocks. As I have said earlier...he was making "entertainment", not a documentary...if you just can't stand his literary license, then go watch "Gladiator" or "Titanic"...they are icons of historical accuracy.

 

Not that OLD argument again. (As in 2000-years old, give or take a few years.)

 

Sursum corda!

Etymologically, you're quite right. However, it would be good to specify weak or strong atheism here. People typically see agnosticists as those who lack belief and atheists as those with a positive belief in non-existence of any gods.

Oh please... You call that logic?

1. Atheism is non assent (assumption).
2. Lack of belief in existence is not equal to belief in non-existence.
3. Therefore non-assent is not the same as opposite claim.
4. Following points 1-3, I fail to see how one could go into faith while defending his lack of faith. Without contradicting himself.
5. Contradiction spotted. Victory for Bible Thumpers!

Quite a strange construct, I'd say.

First, the Torah is not of the Farizees. It does include rules like "this and that punishment for this and that exact crime", but remember it was not only a religious moral code, but also the law for the state of Israel. The Farizees went even further, inventing some stuff and thinking up rules derived from rules derived from rules derived from rules etc. God is not a casuist. God is not a lawyer.

Yahveh is not really a proper name, it's descriptive. Means "I am who I am", commonly just "I am". What's then the difference between this and "eimi" or "eimi o eimi" in Greek?

1. God is Yahveh.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Jesus is Yahveh.

That's about it.

Adam is past tense. Jesus is present perfect.

See above. "Eimi" & "eimi o eimi" part. Don't know about the Aramaic text.

What you're saying is basically "Jesus couldn't believe in Jesus". Please, don't make me make another inference...

According to His words, He was aware of His divinity. There's no reason to claim He didn't believe in His own teachings. End of story, I trust?

For someone non-Christian that may be an important problem, but for a Christian it's irrelevant, because God doesn't have to learn languages.

In Jewish opinion, yes. In Jesus's own, no. In Christian, no. No more than God in Old Testament starting a sentence with "listen to lord your God".

I am tempted to refer you to above discussed points, but I think I'll resist it. Look:

Jesus is an earthly name. Is a proper name relevant for a monotheistic deity, basically THE god? Even Yahveh, which serves the purpose, is descriptive. Therefore, there's no need for the word Jesus in there. If looking for the word Christ, see Issiah. Be aware, though, that "christos" or "messiah" is God's annointed - starting with Kings and priests, ending with the prophets.

Also, if Jesus is Yahveh, there's no need to say anything other than Yahveh.

I'm afraid that here comes the dogma of Holy Trinity. God is one, not three. Yahveh is the only God, anyway. It's perfectly valid in Christianity too, not only in Judaism.

Pax Vobiscum

 

To Hacken Slash and everybody else.

Sorry. If I have gone overboard then I apologise. I am only making comments on what I believe, and of course other people have different views. Perhaps it is best if I bow out and....

BTW, I'm not Jewish...

 

AWWW...don't bow out now...I was just starting to learn something.

I wasn't serious in my complaint...just feel kinda squirmy when things make me feel stupid...it happens too often!

BTW...Sadducees ran the temple politics...Pharisees were the Minority Party...Zealots got executed...Hasidics were incomprehensible...and the Essenes withdrew to meditate and compile the Hebrew scriptures...but they were all "special interest" Jews. The average "Jew" followed the laws of Moses and the Torah and did not associate themselves with the particular ideals of any of these sect groups. To make generalizations about the average Palestinian Jew in 30AD is to make statements about the "average woman in 2000AD"...both are irrational and indefensible.

 

Did you read my post or just the couple of statements that called out to you? I addressed the strong/weak atheism as well as the strong/weak agnosticism issue. I myself am a weak atheist and strong agnostic. Most atheists tend towards weak atheism.

I call it an observation. You are reading INTO what I said, not reading what I actually said. Try again adn this time make note of words like "if" and "seem". :wink:

Correct so far.

I tentatively agree but I sometimes wonder...

Correct.

I agree. What is your point?

WHat contradiction? Did I miss something?

The usage of "maltheist" above is one that implies a dislike of the concpet of theism or the act of worshipping things as gods(an Epicuran stance). Threrefore a Maltheistic strong atheist would be someone how is convinced that the very claims for God's existence are self contradictory or nonsensical and strongly dislikes the very idea of worshipping God/gods whether they exist or not.

 

And wasn't that antitheism? OK, maltheism explained.

Sorry, I'm not responsible for relations between what you say and what you want to say.

Indeed. Claiming that a firm defence of the stance of logically backed non-assent to claims may involve positive faith-based opposite claims is one.

 

Chev': Are you trolling me or what? Your responses are not making sense!?

I did not say whatever you seem to THINK I said. AGAIN, you are reading INTO what is said and this is a no-no. I did not say anything I did not WANT to say, nor did I mean something other than what I said.

It would be if I had done such a thing. However I have not. Could you include a quote/reference and possibly a notation explaining how you interpreted whatever it was that lead you to this misunderstanding, when making such a charge so that I may examine exactly what has you so confused and clear the matter up?

 

Taken from Orson Scott Card's "review":

Riiight. Don't donate any of the profit you gained by creating an insensitive, innacurate, anti-semitic movie. Instead, "keep the standards high" (with movies like this, there's about 40 miles to grow, I'd say) and the audience will grow. So the point, in Card's opinion, is to make the audience grow...and by make the audience grow, does he mean change people's minds about Christianity as a whole, or just about the last 12 hours of Jesus' life? Or to convert more people to his extremist views? Or to make more churches post marquees such as "The Jews Killed Our Lord Jesus [source below]?"

p.s. read this if you haven't: http://slate.msn.com/id/2096323/

 

Eh, the Bible cannot be changed to make Martians have come and killed Jesus. What has happened, has happened.

I'm pretty gould with hints, implied meanings and verbal play, but I can only discuss with documented explicit meaning, sorry. Which basically means: people are going to read what you write the way it reads, not the way you would like them to understand you.

Sorry, those tricks won't work on me. The quote you refer to was placed below to and specifically referred to a passage from your post. I am generous about my time, but not as much as to repeat myself.