as completely made up as Paul Bunyan

dude, he's real. i've seen him.

on the streets of bangor, maine.

Al, your assessment of the culpability issue basically sums up what I have been saying, but if the first Christians were just a Jewish splinter group then you would have to throw out half of the New Testament and all of the gentile churches started by the Apostle Paul. In fact there was a division within the early brethren between converted Jews (mostly Pharisees) who were attempting to force gentile Christians to adopt Jewish tradition. However that was quickly quashed by Peter (Acts 15:5).

Have you ever read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" and such? Anyhow, it always comes down to FAITH. Nobody can sit down and PROVE absolutely if there is a God and if the universe was created, or if it all just happened by chance. Either way it takes an element of faith. The bottom line is we will choose to believe what we want to believe.

So BB, You're pretty much in agreement with THIS?

Of course I'm not saying that the early Christians were ONLY Jewish, but Christianity certainly started with Jews. Of course Christianity is very specifically NOT racially limited, though, as salvation is offered freely to any who accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior.

No, I can't say that I necessarily agree with your link because it takes the argument to the extreme.

The point is you cannot PROVE to me that the universe happened by chance any more than I can PROVE it was created by GOD. I believe the evidence is more in favour of creation, BUT, can it be proven? I think not, and there is an element of faith no matter what your view. That's all that I am saying.

So, do you believe me now ? :-)

I didn't know that I was DISbelieving you.

I'm not making any claim to knowledge about how we got here. I'm not nearly that arrogant. I used to know EVERYTHING, back when I was 18 or so. I've forgotten a lot of stuff since then, apparently.

The fact that I don't have The Answer does not, however, mean that I'm going to talk myself into believing in some extremely unlikely story about people raising from the dead and such.

As unlikely as matter somehow materializing out of nothing - hence the big poof theory? Or, who lit the match? It's all a matter of faith bro.

Regarding the 18 know-it-alls. Don't I know it ! ;-)

Al,

I'm sure there's some sort of clever parallel between attempts to locate WMDs and attempts to prove the historical reality of Jesus (perhaps a Feith-based initiative joke), but I can't come up with it just past midnight.

There are questions related to the generations of translation between the source materials as well as questions related to intentional omissions and additions during the canon-formation period of the Bible and through subsequent revision cycles. The KJV you've got listed above is a wonderful poetic document, but clearly has translation flaws--unless you accept it as the revealed word, in which case it does not.

I haven't seen the movie and it doesn't really push my 'must see' buttons. I don't think Mel deserves criticism for making it, it's his money and they're his convictions, let him go to town. I don't think it will 'prove' anything if the movie is a success, and there are enough screens in my area that it won't threaten the opening of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

Lost in the translation. LOL.

You say there is "precious little" evidence as to the historical person of Jesus, but I'm unaware of any and would appreciate any citation to any. Your statement that it all boils down to internecine conflict between two Jewish sects is not accurate. The time was one of messianic fervor in reaction to Roman domination; Jesus was undoubtedly one of the self-proclaimed messiahs albeit quite a minor one since there is no historical record of him, in contrast to other of the kind who had much greater followings. The dominant rabbis were opposed to people like Jesus because they knew that resistance to Rome was futile and suicidal and because Rome was not intent on either the destruction of the Jews or the obliteration of their religion; therefore they advocated collaboration rather than the resistance advocated by the messianic sects, including the sect that became the Christians. For a shred of the original violent aim of the movement that became Christianity, see Luke 22:36, where Jesus counsels his followers to arm themselves. Also try to get Karl Kautsky's "Foundations of Christianity", written over a century ago but still informative albeit flawed by its Marxist bias.

Monsieur Croft, if there was evidence for Jesus equivalent to the dead gassed Kurds for WMDs, I'd be passing out Chick tracts door to door.

The lost in translation argument doesn't get very far with me. From the point of view of a non-believer, sure you can talk about nuances of the translations over the years. However, if YHWH/Jesus gave us the Bible as our guide, he/they would surely make certain that we had an accurate Bible.

I am not a believer of any kind of religion. But if I were a christian, I would feel disgraced beyond measure by the presence in American affairs of the pedophile-dominated Roman Catholic church. I notice from reading some of the hard Protestant websites, notably iconbusters.com, that many people whom I would probably regard (if it were important enough to me) as the real christians, regard the Roman Catholic church as the very embodiment of the antichrist. So, with Mel Gibson and his antisemite father Hutton Gibson calling the shots in Mel's screen enterprise, I guess I would judge them by their own religion. And their particular version of catholocism seems seems more disgusting than anything I have ever heard or seen about the evangelicals, who, at least, almost all lead upright and dignified lives.

One thing about this passion stuff. If Jeshua (Jesus) could not become the savior without being crucified, then why should real christians regard the Jews of that era as heroes for making him go through the martyrdom without which saviorhood never would have happened or been recognized?

My attitude toward you and all this stuff is characterized by curiosity rather than animosity, so take it in that spirit.

By the way. I too hope the Israelis triumph over the Arabs, and I certainly hope they expel all those hateful bastards across the Jordan river. That's the only way to stop any kind of terrorism. As for religion in the middle east, sharia (their combined civil and religious law) is the one factor that keeps most of those deluded Arabs in bondage. I regard islam as a sort of cult of death, with which the west can never compromise.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I would not be quite as harsh on Mel and the Catholics in general as you Arnold, but the rest is right on.

Jesus is mentioned by Josephus in the Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter 111, paragraph 3. Joesphus, a non-believer and the prime Jewish historian of his time even references Jesus as the Christ. The old testament contains over 3000 references to the Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus. If He is only a minor Messiah then I would like to know who the majors were.

Jesus predicted his own demise on the cross and did so willingly. He preached peace and non violence. Luke 22 was just before the Garden of Gethsemane. He knew that he was about to be taken into custody and allowed himself to be taken without resistance.

Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. And the servant's name was Malchus. Joh 18:11 Then Jesus said to Peter, Put up your sword into the sheath. The cup which My Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?

Clearly Jesus was against armed resistance. He was talking to the disciples about taking provisions for their quest after Jesus was gone. A sword was a common necessity for protection for their journeys from the wild beasts, robbers etc. There is no foundation to make accusations of a violent Christian sect. If anything it was just the opposite.

BB- MY RESPONSE to the Josephus reference.

Al - MY RESPONSE to your Josephus reference:

Yawn;

Taking stretch break;

Waking up from dozing;

Uh, um ... Oh sorry, wrong channel.

CLICK !

BB:

I saw your response on Al's other post, and it didn't refute his (extremely mainstream) position that the Testimonium Flavianum had been modified to support Christian doctrine sometime in the centuries between when it was written and the earliest versions available today.

If you're going to site Flavius Josephus, it doesn't make your opponents in debate look bad when you doze through their refutation of it.

Hi Michael, I wasn't aware that I was trying to "refute" anything.

I suppose I was making a simple point and perhaps that point could be summed up by a direct quote from the link provided. "It is, of course, entirely hypothetical, and no textual evidence exists to support it".

If anybody wants to put their faith in foolish theories then that is their prerogative.

Al

I am having trouble with your reference to Revelation 22:18, I think. This was written before the Bible as we know it came into existence. How can this be read as an injunction against modifying the Bible when the Bible did not exist when this was written?

Hi -- You all should check out C.S. Lewis's argument in "Mere Christianity" if you haven't already: either Jesus was the Messiah, or he was a complete lunatic like Jim Jones or David Koresh. I think history has proved that he wasn't the latter.

And about having faith -- that's what Christianity is all about. Christians don't need hard facts in order to believe in God and miracles. At some point you need to make that leap of faith: either God exists or God doesn't. A person can't live a meaningful life and remain in doubt.

Regarding early Christianity -- Jesus and his disciples were all Jews, therefore Christianity did begin as an early sect of Judaism. As I understand it, Jesus set out to reclaim Judaism from the elitist Pharisees and the corrupt temple priests. His teachings and way of life produced a counter-cultural movement and converted both Jews and Gentiles. He's quoted several times in the gospels as saying that some of the Gentiles had more faith than the Jews he was encountering. This just reinforced his message that his teachings were for everyone who heard and followed him.

And finally, ditto to Michael Croft's statement that Gibson has the right to do whatever he wants. Let him speak his piece and let people protest if they want to, but at least let them be properly informed and unbiased by the critics crying about anti-Semitism. It's admirable that anyone these days actually does what he feels is right.

SK

It has been a long time since I have read CS Lewis's work. Are you sure that is what he said? It seems to me one could argue for the validity of many religions based on this reasoning. For example, Mohammed, though he did not claim to be the Son of God, did make various supernatural statements. His religion has lasted several centuries, so why is it not true as well?

Also, it is not quite fair to try to silence the critics of Gibson's movie When "The Last Temptation of Christ" appeared in the theatres it was roundly criticized by many as being anti Christian. Many of those critics no doubt think the individuals criticizing Gibson's movie are unfair.

Roland,

What do most people say about Jesus?
That he was a great moral leader, but likely was not divine.
However, if you accept that Jesus was a great moral leader, then his statement that he is divine is either true or the ranting of a madman. If he is a madman, he cannot also be a great moral leader. You cannot have both.
This is the argument which Lewis makes.

Furthermore, I never wrote that Christianity was the only religion with any validity. I believe that God reveals himself in many different forms and we have interpreted God's presence in different ways. There are many common truths to both Christianity and Islam, especially taken in their purest forms. Even major pantheistic religions have truths in them: loving kindness, understanding, wisdom, peace on earth; and they emphasize that happiness depends not on material things but on your relationship with the divine. Just like Christianity. I have no problem saying that the Dalai Lama, for example, is an extremely holy man, and I believe that he has God's blessing to bring the messages of Tibetan Buddhism to the world.

Christianity is not meant to be easy to understand. It is not meant to fit into easily observed parameters. It is meant to shock, to anger, to buck convention, to force you to struggle with its message. However, it is NOT about blame, even though that's what the media focuses on to the exclusion of the other controversial elements of the story (Our sinful human nature? God as a man? Redemption of humanity, anyone?) Blame is what we humans do best, it appears -- hey, wasn't there a fruit-eating incident in a garden somewhere?

SK

These are interesting points. There is something I have always wondered about though. This argument assumes we know precisely what Christ said. While I will agree that the Scriptures are consistent in the sense that the older versions of source documents tend to agree with the most recent, how does a person know for certain that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God? This is what Lewis's argument seems to rely heabily upon.

Roland,

I suppose we operate under the assumption that no one would make this up. If we assume that Jesus did actually exist and that he did have followers, we can reasonably assume that along with everything else he said, he also said he was the Messiah. If you've read the Bible, though, you know that Jesus rarely comes right out and says "Hi, nice to meet you -- I'm the son of God." He makes reference to it more obliquely, and talks about the kingdom of God and of heaven in such a way that you imagine he has a better idea of these things than the rest of us. Also, things were foretold in Old Testament scripture that he fulfilled -- he was from the line of David, he was born in Bethlehem, etc.

Mostly, though, he went around healing and forgiving people on behalf of God -- something that's not frequently done by your ordinary person on the street. Christians believe that Jesus didn't just say extraordinary things -- he did them.

BB:

I think it's pretty clear that you weren't refuting Al's commentary on the Flavius Jospephus text, but I'm not sure I see the simple point you think you are making with comment #15 or the same comment in Al's other post.

The passage on the page you're mischaracterizing is an attempt to give the benefit of the doubt to the altered antiquities and speculate about what the original text might have looked like if had existed. They clearly differentiate the speculation they're mentioning from the three other quotes from two sources that they use.

BB, in #13 you rely on the authority of a source that is not generally accepted by scholars outside of schools of divinity. That's fine, you can believe what you want. Your response to having the authority you site challenged is, to be overkind, unconvincing. I wonder why you were convinced that it was worthwhile to comment thusly once, much less twice.

No one is saying you can't believe that there was a historical figure named Jesus. But with the evidence and the arguments you're using, you won't get far telling Al (and me) that we must accept it. The evidence doesn't support that conclusion.

Al -- the problem with your article is that you claim to read the entire Bible but haven't. The Gospels have been changed over numerous years, including for purposes of converting others to Christianity and persecuting others. In fact, Mel Gibson admitted using the poetry of another author of a "passion play" -- an antisemitic German nun.

Now that we have our facts straight, if you want to say that Mel Gibson tried to make the "most accurate story every told" using his select material, then I'd say you are correct. But if he wanted the most accurate story then he would have invited the world's top theologian scholars into the room for discussion. He didn't. In fact, he didn't care to hear anyone's opinion but the words in his head.

I'll say this -- I can now understand what the Indians have felt watching decades of films that make their people look like a bunch of simple minded buffoons who run along making strange noises and speaking in monosyllables. So the Jews must feel with regard to the 'weak' Pontius Pilate who must be convinced by a 'money hungry priest' to kill Jesus (that was pulled out of Mel's buttocks since this is all undocumented by anyone's account.)

As a Christian I'm rather offended by the movie. It's not accurate and doesn't even leave you with the point of Jesus' life and death, just the fact that the last 12 hours were bloody outrageous or outrageously bloody. I feel bad for the thousands of others who died the same way. But Christianity is about hope and love. This is brutality and fiction.

Al - get your facts straight before talking about the most accurate story ever told. Another lie perpetrated amongst us.

Dearest Michael. In reference to your comment #24 please note the following:

It was Al that asked me in comment #14 to state it a second time as you so aptly pointed out. Sorry if that offended you.

You make sweeping comments with respect to the validity of Josephus and reference so-called "scholars outside of schools of divinity" without backing it up with any published works. The bottom line is your belief system is based on conjecture no matter what way you look at it. In fact you could refer to any work you wish but that doesn't make it so does it my friend?

The fact is over time archaeology has only proven the validity of the historical Bible. But there will always be the nay sayers who pursue their personal agendas to justify their unbelief and in so doing attempt to discredit the faith of others. If that is your thing then more power to you. If you are trying to attempt to discredit my opinion, well.. to quote yourself "the evidence doesn't support that conclusion" neither.

The point I am making is I am quite frankly weary of frivolous works that attempt to dismiss the validity of scripture based on matters of faith rather than fact. Discussions like this are a waste of time and it all boils down to who you want to believe.

Hence, (yawn) I believe that we have both made that clear and I suggest that should be the end of it. Peace bro :-)

re: "...if you accept that Jesus was a great moral leader, then his statement that he is divine is either true or the ranting of a madman."

Specious logic warning!

1) We don't know that he claimed to be 'divine'. Many scholars question the authenticity of 'explicit' claims portrayed as direct quotes in the synoptic gospels

2) Under certain definitions, we could all be 'divine' (see Hinduism for more)

3) ...which means one could claim divinity for oneself, assume it's true, and also not be a 'ranting madman'. One could just be mistaken.

re. "If he is a madman, he cannot also be a great moral leader. You cannot have both.

Why not? It could be argued that many 'great moral' leaders were, under relative conditions, also mad. (It could be argued that to put yourself into a situation where you were viewed as a 'great moral leader' requires some level of madness. Sorta like running for office or wanting to be famous in Hollywood.)

Again, it's all in how you define your terms.

BTW: C.S. Lewis was trying to figure out a way he could intellectually & empirically justify his wacky, illogical religion.

Apparently blind faith wasn't good enough.

PS: "Extraordinary claims (returning from the dead, fer instance!) require extraordinary proofs." ---Which yer never gonna get. As I said before on another thread, there's a reason they call it 'faith'.

BB:"The fact is over time archaeology has only proven the validity of the historical Bible. "

This statement is completely unsupported by archaeological data or mainstream thought of contemporary experts in the field.

"The gap between the Biblical Israel and the historical Israel as we derive it from archaeology is huge. We have almost two entirely different societies. Beyond the name 'Israel' and the same geographical location, they have almost nothing in common."

I find it interesting that some people can be as fanatical in their desire to DISPROVE the faith as the most adamant of believers.

How about that? People are more similar than different.

BB,

I certainly agree with you on #29, but don't think it applies to my comments on the state of the historical and archaeological record.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The lack of historical or archaeological evidence does not disprove that there was a Jesus. There was no such evidence for the existence of Troy for nearly two thousand years (give or take a century, and Troy was bigger and moved around less than Jesus.

Conversely you could find the bona fide Very Secret Diaries of P. Pilate and it wouldn't prove or disprove the premise that Jesus was the messiah.

BB: (in a rare moment of incredulity) "I find it interesting that some people can be as fanatical in their desire to DISPROVE the faith as the most adamant of believers."

BB, man-o-man, you should be on this side for a while! If we agnostics (et al) ever even approach a friggin' majority, we'll shut up with the fanatical desires to "disprove the faith."

It might be different if we had our own 'stuff' we could shove down others' throats, but alas and verily I say unto thee: we're pretty low in that department.

(I mean--- when was the last time an agnostic knocked on your door and wanted to share a booklet with ya? Or a chorus stood outside in the snow and sang hymns about the miraculous birth of Jean Paul Sartre?)

See, one of the drawbacks to bein' an agnostic is that if I ever make a dogmatic movie about my most personal religious beliefs, I won't have shit for tie-ins.

Mel's got Nail Pendants.

Lucky bastard.

I don't see that a Christian needs to accept the whole Bible to be a believer. In fact, I'm pretty sure most Christians and Jews don't accept Adam and Eve as the literal truth. The real question then, between all sects and religions, is what do you accept as literal truth, what as metaphor, and what as error, and why?

"...Hymns about the miraculous birth of Jean Paul Sartre..."

That sounds like a challenging hymnal to write, Shark.

"The first No Exit, was a francophone play, performed in Paris before VE day..."

"Garcin the Existential Dead Guy, said that 'Hell is other people'..."

#32 -> BB on the floor laughing in hysterics as he turns various shades of red and blue fighting for air!

Shark you are so funny man. No matter what you say I don't think I could ever get pissed off with you.

But seriously, surely you understand somebody has to keep you heathen in line (Just kidding bro).

Point well taken!

#31 Michael -> not that P. Pilate could be considered an authority :-).

BB: You can send Timmy the Time Tripper back in his Time Vortex to Holy Week with his digital camera and his Mr. DNA home genetic sampling kit and get irrefutable proof and it still doesn't touch on the question of the truth or untruth of the divinity of Jesus (although Dan Brown will want to test your samples).

So, is it fair to say that you're opposed to my interpretation of the content of the secular historical and archaeological records because claiming that they do not support the existence of Jesus implies that Jesus did not exist? I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I also don't want you to be under the impression that I believe that.

BTW: Shark? About the Symbols? Become a Discordian.

• We get Hot Dog Buns (on Fridays)
• Our symbols rawk
• Our goddess is a babe
• No one will ever really know if you're pulling their leg about your religion

Huh? Now you're losing me Michael. You should be a lawyer because you don't give easily do you?

What I'm saying is it is a futile discussion. What is known today will be refuted tomorrow, which in turn will be reversed upon the next archaeological dig and subsequent theory.

The so-called facts grow cold with time and when we reach back thousands of years there are going to be gaps in the record. The bottom line is we will choose to believe what we want to believe regardless of the so-called facts.

In the end it is a decision of faith no matter which side of the fence we sit on. I have personally looked all of the theories and facts and made the conscious decision to believe that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God. So do have faith brother?

Michael - not to propagate the argument, but here is an interesting link for your reading pleasure.

Shark: "I mean--- when was the last time an agnostic knocked on your door and wanted to share a booklet with ya? Or a chorus stood outside in the snow and sang hymns about the miraculous birth of Jean Paul Sartre?"

True, agnostics aren't very organized. Maybe that's because most intelligent people don't choose doubt as a way of life. Sometimes doubt is helpful as a means to strengthen one's faith, but it's pretty uncomfortable to spend one's whole life sitting on the fence.

For everyone's edification: C.S. Lewis was an ATHEIST for the majority of his life, then experienced conversion and spent the rest of his life writing about Christianity and his relationship with it -- not "to figure out a way he could intellectually & empirically justify his wacky, illogical religion" -- but because he BELIEVED, and wanted others to come to belief also.

I recommend C.S. Lewis's very convincing arguments in "Mere Christianity" and "God in the Dock" to every person who's posted to this board.

SK: "Maybe that's because most intelligent people don't choose doubt as a way of life."

Boy, where do I aim my harpoon of disdain on this lumbering whale of a whopper?

SK, sorry, but I DOUBT that your truism is true. Even a casual perusal of history (especially science... y'know some of the most "intelligent" people in history?) would show how friggin' WRONG you are.

Doubt leads to questions, curiosity, and if yer lucky, knowledge.

*True Believers don't doubt.

*eric hoffer version

Most unintelligent people NEVER express doubt. I'd even go so far as to say that one reason this world is so fucked up is that so few people have the balls or the intellectual integrity to DOUBT some of the crap they're constantly spoon-fed.

The Holocaust, brought to you by people who never doubted!

Wars, racism, genocide, most of the monumental evils of history, brought to you SPECIFICALLY by people who never doubted!

Feh.

Oh, and lastly, (Shark screaming at the top of his lungs, blood vessels bursting from his forehead)
FAITH IS BASED ON DOUBT!


PS:
"An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself." ---Camus

"Never give a sucker an even break." ---Fields

Hail Croft,

re. Discordianist ---

shhhh, I'm been one for over three decades.

No wife, no horse, no mustache.

PS: No relation to Syd and Marty, are ya?

It sounds like you have a pretty fair background with the New testament scriptures--but the early church had only the old testament. That is what is referred to as the scriptures. That is why in the epistles, the OT is quoted so often. And it is there that you will see that while the Jews did reject and crucify their own Messiah, God has not utterly rejected them. Carefully read Romans 9-11 and you will find a clear mandate to the church to not be arrogant toward the non-believing Jew.
I think the problem with anti-semitism is Not the source material, but sinful attitudes that say,"my sin is better than yours!"

Israel will be restored by their very own God and Messiah!!

Ms K- Point well taken about the early church not having the New Testament. I hadn't thought of that.

Interesting. There sure are a lot of assumptions about what "scholars say." I imagine you read a book by Rudolph Bultmann (or Borg, Crossman["Suppose we were marshans"], etc) and now its "scripture." But that's not tha part that "gets" me most; your presupposition are equally as faulty and doubtful. (See Hume, i.e. You can't even know if the sun will rise tomorrow.) My question, whether Jesus is fake or real, to you isn't there something in the heart and actions of Jesus worth imitating? To love the unlovely, forgive the unforgivable, to serve people, to love your enemy? Cannot the world be changed this way? Ghandi seemed to think so, C.S. Lewis, Mother Teresa Chesterton,and Newton, Bacon, Galileo,etc all believed this way. Are you greater than them? You probably think so somewhere in your mind thanks to Nietzche, Sartre, and Deridda and their postmodern rhetoric. (i.e. If you make it have some type of meaning then it has the meaning that you make of it.) This certainly has killed God. What if a man gains the whole world yet forfiets his soul?

Oh, and anyone who reads BAR or NEA or other historical and archeological periodicals as well as theological and historical works knows there is always two sides to the arguments. (Though interestingly enough, most Historians do not doubt that there was a Jesus of Nazareth but it is the Liberal Theologians who have casted doubt upon him, now that's interesting, a bunch of sweaty old farts sitting in an office unable to live up to the Sermon on the Mount had to find a way out, if only they had realy believed what he said about the spirit filled life...) I could match the quote from BAR with the equal amount of quotes supporting the opposite argument. The irony is thick here. The Bible, oh know here he goes, actually says, "There is nothing new under the sun. Everything is meaningless. Except this..." You thought Sartre was the first Existentialist. Ecclesiastes, check it out.

Oh J, puh-lease. Is God like Tinkerbell or what? This certainly has killed God. No belief or lack of it on my part would kill God if He existed.

Nor would reading Sartre make one think they were hot stuff. It would just make you want to get sick at the sight of a tree, or some such.

The teachings of Jesus may or may not be worth imitating, but that is a very different question from whether or not he was/is GOD.

"killing God" is an allusion to "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (sp) by Nietzche (sp). I think that was the work with the quote in it. The killing is the subjective killing of God which is what he meant. No one thinks that you can actually kill God. Maybe the life of Christ is worth imitating. Try imitating and then you may have a different mind to the facts.

J at #45:
"...isn't there something in the heart and actions of Jesus worth imitating? To love the unlovely, forgive the unforgivable, to serve people, to love your enemy? Cannot the world be changed this way?"

I strongly believe that if Jesus/the New Testament preached/taught: "... hate the unlovely, never forgive the unforgivable, especially if they were innocent, abuse people, hate your enemy and claim the Other is The Enemy etc...." -
Then and maybe only then anti-semitism, pogroms, the Holocaust, the bloody Expulsions and even the Inquisition would have never come to embalm and emblem our faithfull world...

ms.k #43
"...it is there" (in the OT) "that you will see that while the Jews did reject and crucify their own Messiah, God has not utterly rejected them."
Isn't it a bit imperialistic?...
If Jesus is Jew's Messiah, then we are all Christians, as allowed by the Inquisition but not by Hitler. I'm lost in this labitynth.
By the way, it's been claimed here behind closed doors that I'm the real Messiah, and believe me, although I'm strongly rejected, God has utterly not rejected my people, nor yours. Or has She?

Oh, Shark, you have no teeth, yet you are an eternal living proof that a healthy sense of Humor is Our Savior.

I got the fattest boner.

To Corinna and fellow runners,
Far from true. You know little of history if you believe this. Men and women have always hated, killed, lusted, and devoured one another in the name of truth, justice, and God. Evil is shifty because it has the appearance of goodness. Also, you are being anachronistic by pretending that somehow based on today's knowledge (hindsight) that you would have thought or acted different than some of the people you mentioned. Christ's message was hope for those who would hear. He clearly says you will know my disciples by the way they love one another. This is the fruit of those who follow. What you have is a false position. You are equating Jesus' message with human action and this is furtherest from truth. You also did not mention the millions of people who have transformed lives because of Jesus.

Dear Luke,

I find it amazing that a Christian could view "The Passion of the Christ" and come away with a message centering on brutality rather than hope and forgiveness as did I.

Without a portrayal of the brutality suffered by Jesus, would his message of forgiveness and love be as strong?

If Jesus could love, forgive and pray for men who tortured him, certainly we can all love, forgive and pray for ALL of our fellow "men".

Had the portrayal of the violence suffered by Jesus been less graphic or consumed less time on the screen, perhaps Jesus' forgiveness might not have been viewed as something as truly inspiring!

The world is in dire need of a message such as this!

You seem to have missed the fact that this movie is ONLY telling the story of Jesus' suffering leading up to and including the crucifixion. While it DOES only focus on the 12 hours leading up to his death, that IS a very important part of the "point of his life and death". Mel Gibson doesn't pretend to tell the whole story of Jesus' life. Of course there are other important messages and stories in the Bible and perhaps they will also be told on the big screen some day. In the mean time, take this movie for what it is. A portrayal of one part of Jesus' life!

Michelle

tired of all the 'anti-jewish' stuff.

Schindlers list can be seen as unnecessarily making Germans look bad, but Germans shooting Jews, it HAPPENED. It was put on screen. So there. I'd still make friends with german dudes.

The Passion isnt even ABOUT jews. You have to sit down and REALLY think what its really about, what its about for you not as a jew but as a HUMAN BEING.

JESUS CHRIST! I really did try to read all the posts but I got tired. There is one underlying factor here. Why is it always the non-believers who have a whole lot to say about whether there was a Jesus or not? Was he divine or not? Blah blah blah. IF U DO NOT BELIEVE, SCRAM! BUGGER OFF! FUCK OFF. Has anyone held a gun to your heads to believe? Are you strapped in the pews at the Cathedral? What is all this about?!

Arnold, as far as your comment about the Roman Catholic church, you have revealed yourself to be an ignorant buffoon. Now, you start your sentence with "I'm not a believer but if I was"...LOL> Stop there! YOU ARE NOT A BELIEVER. Why give yourself a headache about how you would feel if you were? If I was not a believer, I would have no time whatsoever for the issues that seem to have consumed your little brain so much you have chosen to lambast the entire RC church as a community of pedophiles. May God forgive you, and have mercy on your soul for you know not what you say.

The bottom line is this..Mel made a movie about his beliefs, with his own money inspired by his own faith. I have seen the movie. As a christian I was moved and wept through out and I almost found myself kneeling during the crucifixion. This is saying a lot since one is not exactly a holier than thou character. I was moved. I did not come out hating all Jews. I did not come out hating all Romans. I don't feel like slaughtering anyone with the exception of Arnold and his likes;). I have known this story forever. It is from THE BIBLE. If the Bible has not incited anti-semitic feelings all these years, Passion of Christ is not going to do so.

Jesus is the son of God. Jesus is the Messiah. You can only get to heaven through Christ. THAT is the Christian belief. The Jews can believe whatever they want. Though I remain puzzled since it seems after the crucifixion they realised the truth. Somewhere along the line, they reverted back. Who knows?! Who cares! To each his/her own. The Muslims can believe whatever they want to believe. I have no problem with different sects debating or trying to understand. What I find most annoying is when we have these so called non believers roaming around like headless chickens, talking about evidence and history and theology and archaelogy. GIVE IT A REST! As a non-believer you should be living a stress free life. Guilt free. No conscience issues. Why trouble your little heads? If we believers are being naive and misled, what's it got to do with you? Afterall, you don't believe in a Heaven or Hell we are destined to inhabit..at the end of it all, "one" of us is going to be disappointed. Why don't we wait and see which group of us is?:)

You should read TRUE LIFE IN GOD at www.tlig.org.
It has strengthened my faith in God so wonderfully.