Passion of the Christ

Oh I dunno. Maybe 2,500+ years of accumulated western thought (not just the stuff that comes out of Roman Catholic dogma)?

 

How about this?

Apparently I've stumbled into the morass of defending communism, which is a bit tough given my true political leanings (voted Republican at least twice in my life). However, to answer your question I would draw this from the famous phrase "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability". Empty promises, yes. But no emptier than the promises of God's Kingdom on Earth for those who underwent the torture at the hands of the true Christian Church during times past for "wrong beliefs" and heresy.

Perhaps you'd like to put me to the stake now? *LOL*

 

I think either I didn't present myself lucidly or you misunderstood me.

Atheism has been the official religion of some totalitarian states that have committed grave atrocities. That's the point I was making.

I agree with your statements regarding Rousseau, Comte, Kant (great philosopher, but no Kierkegaard), etc.

But, Debs and Thomas did have some good ideas, albeit impractical.

When speaking of socialism we need to distinguish between democratic and non-democratic socialism.

America has a plethora of leftist parties ranging from the democratic socialists to the revolutionary communists.

 

Jimmy,
You are most welcome for the dialogue AND the civility. I agree, it is needed here. Also, appreciate that you can discern an academic disagreement from a polemical attack on one's very value as a human being. Theologically, we may indeed be close - I just like to be the "devil's advocate" (no pun intended) from time to time.
- Carl

 

Being the "devil's advocate" can be fun but the arrows do fly!

I gather you are Jewish. I studied Reform Judaism for a long, long time. As a matter of fact, the Reform Jewish branch used to have the word "liberal" in their official title when I studied them.

I also studied Hasidsim and am a devout reader of Martin Buber

 

Re: Re: Re: Christians not violent?????

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians not violent?????

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians not violent?????

===



Can you give me precisely where Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls say the things about Jesus on which you say you base your beliefs, here expressed, about the true meaning, ministry, and message of Jesus?

Can you, eg, give me just one citation about Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls or can you tell me where Josephus calls Jesus a "rebel like the Zealots"?

I will look these up and examine them if you will kindly provide the specific texts upon which you say you base your views.

Thanks,

 

That issue may be important, but it's irrelevant to the question I was asking:

What is the meaning of Christ's suffering?

'The Passion of Christ' edits out Jesus' teaching message. It reduces dialogue almost to incomprehensibility. (Subtitles were a concession.)

And the film devotes a tremendous amount of attention to depicting Jesus' pain in excruciating detail. Presumably his pain and his blood have religious significance.

Degreeinfo is inhabited by many clergymen and theologians. Hopefully some of you have some understanding of what Mel Gibson was trying to depict up there on the big screen.

I'm not attacking Christianity. I'm not your adversary. I'm just asking you to please help me understand.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians not violent?????

Well, I can't exactly do that because I do not have enough time in the day right now - but in the past, I have read many books on the subject, and the summation of that knowledge has led to my views. However, here is a web link that also provides a similar summary...

http://www20.brinkster.com/theword/origins/jesusx.html

Please understand that none of this is implied as an attack on Jesus - just an attempt to reveal more of the truth than comes from Mel Gibson's celebration of violence and anti-semitism, as can only be expected from a long tradition of Roman Catholic violence against the Jews as a people.

For the record, I am NOT Jewish, although my name sounds like it may be. I am in fact Lutheran, and we have our own reasons for disliking the current and past practices of the Roman Church on a variety of issues, most of them not related to anti-semitism of which our own church (Martin Luther) has not been exactly guiltless.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians not violent?????

 

My pleasure...

Bill,
Thanks for questioning my sources - indeed my opinions on this board are simply opinions, sometimes stated as fact based on past learning and biases. The past learning has been synthesized but nevertheless I do believe there is ample evidence in the "holistic history of the world" to indicate that Rome, the Zealot revolt, the diaspora, the roots of early Christianity, subsequent late Roman and early medieval Church actions, and anti-semitism are somehow all bound up in a continuum that has led to tremendous crimes against one particular component of humanity - the Jewish people. I further believe that the Christian religion as practiced by its followers (but not as espoused by Christ Himself) has been at the root of these crimes.

However, I do thank you as well for causing me to explore more deeply my positions on all of this - I can't say that I've changed my mind about Mel's movie or the ultimate implications for anti-semitism, but I do realize there is more to all of this than a simple post-modern historical interpretation can possibly conjure from any number of texts. One of my next research topics in my own grad school program will be to ask the question "what historical evidence exists (other than the New Testament) of the humanity and actual existence of Jesus Christ".

We agree to disagree then?

- Carl

 

Re: My pleasure...

==

Of course.

I was not defending Gibson or the movie or its possible effects. My only concern was who and what Christ is according to Scripture.

Thanks,

 

Thanks for the posts, Carl. Historical candor, esp. about one's own religion, is always refreshing in an atmosphere of flummery and evasion. It complements Bill's textual expertise nicely, to the edification of us all.

 

Do you know what is completely missing from the movie? Palestinians, that's what! Not one time in the entire move do you see one single Palestinian anywhere. Romans and Jews ... that's about it. No Palestinians.

And do you know why there are no Palestinians in the movie? Do you know why it's just Romans and Jews? Because that's pretty much all you had in those parts in those days. Romans and Jews. No Palestinians. The Palestinians came later. Much later.

Oh ... and while we're at it. You keep hearing the so-called Palestinians and assorted other Arabs talking about "occupied territories?" These are not territories that are occupied. They are lands that were conquered. These lands belong to Israel. Period. End of story.

There .. that ought to ruffle some feathers.

 

'The Passion of the Christ' depicts Jesus' suffering in excruciating detail. Presumably the pain and the blood have a message for the film's audience.

Hopefully some of our scholars have some insight into what Mel Gibson was trying to depict up there on the big screen.

 

==

You know where to look if you are interested ; it takes no scholar to give you insight.

Were I a salmon any lure would snag me.

 

A discussion board full of educated Christians who love to talk would seem to be an ideal place to ask that question.

A thread discussing 'The Passion of Christ' would seem to be an ideal occasion.

But help from friendly scholars would help me to form deeper, more accurate and more thoughtful insights.

I'm not trying to snag you.

There has been lots of talk about how this film, 'The Passion of Christ', represents an evangelistic opportunity to reach the "unchurched".

If that's going to work, somebody, somewhere, is going to have to be willing to talk about the message of the film.

 

===

I think that is being done by many . But certainly Gibson did not try to prove the passion, or its meaning, but to show it. Yet oft many wish proof.

But it is my understanding that the NT preachers of the passion and the teachers of those responding to it did not attempt to prove their message except with Scripture. They did not try to prove the Scripture.

If you wish a discussion with me on what the Scriptures about the Passion mean, I'd do that with you. But if you wish rather evidence for those Scriptures, then I guess I'm not caught after all.

So, what will it be?

 

Re: My pleasure...

Carl,

Your mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls reminds me of a book I used to own that I would highly recommend to you, if it's still available.

It was written by Orthodox Archbishop Athanasius Yeshua Samuel of the Syrian Orthodox Church. He and I had a number of written exchanges, a number of years ago, on the Aramaic language and he sent me some books on the Syrian language as well as a copy of his book on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The book is called The Treasure of Qumran.

You might also be interested in The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible,
The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, by Martin Abegg and Peter Flint It's available from Harper-Collins.

Also, wondered what your impression is of the "Jesus Seminar."