So I finally saw the Passion of the Christ

[skins]

By reading your response it sounded as if you and Az were defending the Jews, so I asked the question.

No Im a Southern Baptist, can't you tell.

 

 

Just trying to shed a little light on an interesting topic. What did it look like we were defending the Jews from, by the way?

Edited July 11, 2006 by skins

[Azazello1313]

By reading your response it sounded as if you and Az were defending the Jews, so I asked the question.

No Im a Southern Baptist, can't you tell.

 

 

well me, i'm just reiterating the best evidence history has to offer.

 

but hook-nose skins over there, on the other hand...i think you're on to something.

[skins]

well me, i'm just reiterating the best evidence history has to offer.

 

but hook-nose skins over there, on the other hand...i think you're on to something.

 

 

My nose is pretty, vile bassturd. And I am related to Jesus, by the way, as my Sephardic grandfather is from the same tribe. Who knows, I may be of the Davidic bloodline.

[cre8tiff]

My nose is pretty, vile bassturd. And I am related to Jesus, by the way, as my Sephardic grandfather is from the same tribe. Who knows, I may be of the Davidic bloodline.

 

 

Would that make you ForeSkins?

[Sgt. Ryan]

Not saying you're wrong, but you shouldn't state your opinion as fact. The Bible can be at times contradictory and confusing, but not in this case. It clearly says that both Herod & Pilate wanted nothing to do with his death. How you interpret Matthew's writings is your own opinion. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. I think they both wanted him dead, but neither wanted his 'blood on their hands'. Therefore since it was the Romans job to crucify him they ultimately forced the decision to do it on the Jewish leaders making it sound as if they only did it to placate them.

 

 

 

Exactly right.

[Clubfoothead]

Somebody had to kill Jesus otherwise he's just another dirty f*cking hippie preaching tolerance and respect for others. The alleged crucifiction and his alleged rising from the dead is pretty important to Christianity, correct?

[cre8tiff]

Exactly right.

 

 

And it wasn't exactly thier writing either. It is 20 centuries worth of translator's writing.

[Skinss]

Picklecavitius 12:12 On the 8th day G-D created Tuna cans

[Sgt. Ryan]

Just trying to shed a little light on an interesting topic. What did it look like we were defending the Jews from, by the way?

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, you are correct that much of biblical interpretation is opinion, but it is usually based upon scholarshp and fact. For example, Matthew was one of the Synoptic Gospels, meaning seeing with one eye. It was based upon the earliest accepted traditional Gospel, Mark, and with Luke repeats much of what was written in Mark. It is also a post-Masada writing that follows Paul. Many call the four Gospels Pauline in nature, because they are addressing an early church whose message is largely shaped by Paul and not by the early Jerusalem church led by the family of Jesus (the family of Jesus and the Jerusalem community were largely destroyed after the revolt leading to Masada and the sack of Jerusalem).

 

Paul's message was to both Jews and gentiles, but it was specifically pro-Roman and anti-Jewish in nature, because there was incredibly widespread animosity to the Jews at that time following their numerous and ongoing rebellions--which continued into the second century AD. So what Asz is saying is pretty commonly accepted by biblical scholars based upon historiographical information and analysis of the early church writings.

 

 

 

I think this response to rajn came across as defending the Jewish People of that time. I just was curious if you were Jewish.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Sgt. Ryan

[Sgt. Ryan]

I have yet to see the movie, and dont think I will. But I have read the bible, and I know how it ends, and I dont care to see how much my Savior suffered for my salvation. As I am not worthy of such a sacrifice, but thankful everyday for it.

[skins]

I think this response to rajn came across as defending the Jewish People of that time. I just was curious if you were Jewish.

 

 

You still havent answered my question: Defending the Jews from what?

 

I was pointing out that the Pauline pro-Gentile, anti-Jewish Matthew, composed many decades after the death of Jesus in an effort to appeal to a Roman and Hellenistic audience, was post Masada and the sacking of Jerusalem, in a time when many Romans were very angry with the Jews for their constant revolts.

 

What about that is not accurate?

[Sgt. Ryan]

You still havent answered my question: Defending the Jews from what?

 

I was pointing out that the Pauline pro-Gentile, anti-Jewish Matthew, composed many decades after the death of Jesus in an effort to appeal to a Roman and Hellenistic audience, was post Masada and the sacking of Jerusalem, in a time when many Romans were very angry with the Jews for their constant revolts.

 

What about that is not accurate?

 

 

I just think its false that the Jews wanted him dead, but had nothing to do with his death.

 

Quick analogy. Its like convicting someone in Oklahoma for a crime, but allowing texas to also try him allowing him to be punished there because the penalty is much more severe, and it keeps the blood off their hands.

 

 

That is the angle I got from most of your posts.

[skins]

I just think its false that the Jews wanted him dead, but had nothing to do with his death.

 

Quick analogy. Its like convicting someone in Oklahoma for a crime, but allowing texas to also try him allowing him to be punished there because the penalty is much more severe, and it keeps the blood off their hands.

That is the angle I got from most of your posts.

 

 

Then yer not paying attention--I never said the Jews had nothing to do with his death. I said they didnt kill him. Of course, Annas and his crew of collaborators wanted him dead, or at least out of their way. He was threatening their cozy setup. But they did not kill him. There is a difference.

 

And the simple fact is that if the Jews had wanted him dead for supposedly being a blasphemer, they had their own law and punishment for that: stoning. But the Romans actually killed him for a specific crime: treason or crimes against the state. And later early church writers made very obvious and often hamhanded efforts to emphasize the role of the Jews and de-emphasize the role of the Romans in order to appeal to a Roman audience.

 

It is very clear, what dont you understand?

[Skilly]

This is all very interesting. Some good points of view. I'm going to have to get out my Bible and re-read some of this stuff----------after I finish The Divinci Code, of course.

 

 

In answer to Squeegie's second part of her post, I think the excessive violence shown was the whole point of the movie. It put such a graphic image into people's minds that it is impossible now to think of Jesus without thinking of Sacrifice.

[skins]

This is all very interesting. Some good points of view. I'm going to have to get out my Bible and re-read some of this stuff----------after I finish The Divinci Code, of course.

In answer to Squeegie's second part of her post, I think the excessive violence shown was the whole point of the movie. It put such a graphic image into people's minds that it is impossible now to think of Jesus without thinking of Sacrifice.

 

 

Blood Sacrifice. A beautiful thing.

 

mmmm....blood.....mmmmm

[Squeegiebo]

In answer to Squeegie's second part of her post, I think the excessive violence shown was the whole point of the movie. It put such a graphic image into people's minds that it is impossible now to think of Jesus without thinking of Sacrifice.

 

 

I realize that was the point of the movie.

 

My point is that people around here often fantasize about the slow, tortuous death of alleged and convicted criminals, and that they are sick if they would enjoy seeing that actually done to anyone.