'You Can't Whitewash the Events of the Bible'

Mel Gibson's movie 'The Passion' is faithful to scripture, and that's why critics are angry, says a Bible scholar.


08/25/2004 11:14:56 PM

What seem people tend to forget is that, to Christians, Christian history is human history because to us God exists and controls everything. If that is true, and we believe that it is true, then we cannot be asked to abandon our beliefs because someone decides we're wrong and tells us to. To do so would be unreasonable and stupid.


03/02/2004 05:26:17 AM

Actually according my current western civ classes in college christianity was a central event for a good reason Jesus said all people are equall in the sight of God.Even the most Humanistic atheist/pagan society the greeks and romans up till this point veiwed the outcast of society as a group to be steped on so they could acheive the good life.


03/01/2004 09:46:35 PM

What people miss entirely is that there is no GOD, Jesus was not any messiah or savior to anyone, except in current belief systems that go way back to the Dark Ages of humankind, and his life and death were not the central events of human history. It's time to get on with it, get on with the human experiment, go past the old superstitions of Jews, Muslims and Christians, and yes Buddhists and Shintoists, too, and embrace the New World Order. The world is stuck in neutral on the spirituality highway without a roadmap. Jesus is old hat. Time to move on, everyone. Get over it, he didn't die for anyone's sins.


02/29/2004 07:55:13 AM

You know, the sad thing about fundamentalist Christians is that they believe, in their faithness, that the life and death of Joshua Ben Joseph, who they call Jesus in English now, was the central event in human history. But it was not. It was the central event in Christian belief history, but that's all. Christian belief history is just part of the huge human struggle to find God in the universe, even though there is no God in the universe. So it would be a wise thing if Christians could understand that Jesus' death was not the central event in human history, just the central event in Christian history. There is a big difference. If only they could understand.


02/19/2004 06:22:59 PM

Jesus gave his own life willingly. It was pre-ordained in Scripture. He uses analogies of him being an old temple that needs tearing down. Of being like tree seeds that need to be scattered to grow. Of needing to ascend to the Father where greater things will happen. Most strikingly, the New testament uses powerful imagery comparing Jesus to the sacraficial pure lamb who need be slaughtered to cleanse the sins of the people in the Old Testament with it's blood. Would a relgious, Godly Jew HATE and REVILE the pries who did the sacrafice of the lamb or goat? Of COURSE NOT! This priest would be carrying out a solemn requirement of GOD!! Jesus himself-besides foreshadowing throughout the Gospels, asks in the end of Luke- "Is it not necessary that the Christ should have suffered?" The rhetorical question being answered with an obvious "yes".


02/19/2004 06:22:14 PM

Hating Jews is really saying: "Jesus didn't come back. Jesus lied, he didn't lay down his life. We are NOT washed in the blood of Jesus. He didn't have to be crucified. He should have lived to be 700 and died peacefully under an apple tree, sipping a wine cooler. The Word of God is partially bullcrap. The Jews of that time had more power than Jesus. They were stronger than Jesus and stronger than God the Father. It was NOT pre-ordained. We love Jesus, insomuch as we'll defend him like loyal henchmen to a mob boss- carrying out vendettas against his supposed enemies, even into infinite generations- yet throw his peaceful 'love your enemies and neighbors' garbage into the trash can- and we will doubt and assail through our actions any notion of actually being saved, forgiven and grateful" This would be like modern Jews hating ethnic Egyptiians because they and their Pharaoh were mean to Moses' people the ancient Hebrews. Yet God obviously oversaw the whole thing.


02/17/2004 09:08:40 PM

sojourner: I think the hypothesis that Jesus survived his crucifixion is a more reasonble one than the notion that he rose from the dead and eventually floated off back to heaven. As to where he actually ended up following his likely recovery, I have no idea. Jesus had a well known and documented near contemporary --Apollonious of Tyana -- who also ran afoul of the incumbent authorities and who also disappeared after a grueling trial. Their are a number od interesting historical similarities between Jesus and Apollonius. Among other things, both were said to have ascended to heaven, and were creditied with subsequent appearances, even to unbelievers. There is nothing new under the sun.


02/17/2004 03:48:28 PM

I simply believe in John 3:16. It simply states : For God so loved the world that he gave his only son and whoever believes in him shall not parish but have everlasting life. We have to remember God gave us HIS Son and he died for our sins.


02/15/2004 09:52:32 PM

Why are all the portrayals of Christ some european looking person even though he said make no engravened images of him i think they should at least have someone of middle-easern descent play the role which would look closer to what he may have looked like. in fact from all the clips i've seen most of the actors in general look european.


02/15/2004 08:33:13 PM

A couple of other points: (1) It's likely that the Romans, and not the Jewish leaders, were responsible for the execution of Jesus. The evidence is that Jesus was crucified--a punishment that only the Roman government carried out, which it reserved for political rebels and subversives, as well as criminals. By the way, this also gives us a clue as to the reason for his death--they clearly saw Jesus as a threat to the political and social order. It's certainly possible that the Jewish elites in Jerusalem may also have been involved; but if the Jewish leaders were primarily responsible for Jesus' death, they would have stoned him. (2) There's little doubt that Jesus *was* crucified. The evidence: Christians from Paul forward have all testified in unison to this. And it's hard to believe they would have made up such an inconvenient, and otherwise "embarassing" fact--that their savior was executed as a common criminal--if it weren't true.


02/15/2004 08:23:03 PM

papyrus: Actually, I don't think it's been at all established definitively, that Jesus was executed by order of "the leaders of Israel." The gospels were written at least 30 years after the event, and clearly have their own agendas to propagate. And the only other contemporary references in the historical record to the death of Jesus, are a couple of snippets in, I believe, Tacitus and Josephus. That's hardly what I'd call an established "historical fact." There's nowhere near the same documentation for what you said, as there is for something like the Holocaust, or Stalin's mass murders.


02/14/2004 10:03:06 AM

Recorded history its there for everyone… it teaches us mistakes as well as glorious moments of mankind. It’s a historical fact… that the leaders of Israel decided to have Jesus killed, and so they did. The inquisition tortured and killed millions in Europe. The conquering Muslims, offered submit to Ala or die by the sword. Those are historical facts of those times. Just like it’s a historical fact that Stalin massacred millions of Russians, and the Nazi’s killed millions of Jewish people. Trying to silence history is censorship. Hiding historical truth camouflaged by accusations of anti-Semitism.. is simply a cheap form of censorship. Just like current day Christians, Muslims, and others do not carry the “ Mea Culpa” for past generations… and admit these facts of history. So should those who oppose this movie.


02/14/2004 01:23:42 AM

Anyone who blames the Jews for the death of Christ has no concept about why Jesus was sacrificed on the Cross.


02/12/2004 11:28:24 PM

amen steve123


02/12/2004 01:25:46 AM

namchuck, i was reading one of your posts in another discussion. you made comments that suggest you believe that Christ survived the crucifixion. do you mind if i ask if you believe that He went to france and raised a family? sojourner


02/12/2004 01:20:45 AM

so, namchuck, you are saying that the jews were casting other jews in a bad light? i don't mean to argue. i just want to be clear about what you are saying. regarding your comments about the epistle of titus i would like to point out that there was a specific issue at hand that paul was referring to.


02/11/2004 03:43:51 PM

Sorry, that should be Titus 1:14.


02/11/2004 03:41:37 PM

Even the Apostle Paul says to disregard Jewish fables (like the entire Bible, maybe). (Titus 1:4)


02/11/2004 02:51:08 PM

What! There were no Jewish factions inimical to one another, sojourner?


02/11/2004 09:20:38 AM

the gospels were written by jews. there is a slight possibility that luke was not jewish, but there is no doubt about matthew, mark, or john. besides the fact that most xpians of that time were jews. so how is it that "it made good sense to cast the jews and their religion in a bad light"? sojourner


02/11/2004 09:11:34 AM

bock brings up the issue of gibson using latin rather than greek. this is interesting because i am reading 'the grass crown' written by colleen mcCullough right now. she has written a series of about 6 books on rome. according to mcCullough latin was still being used because the romans believed it to be the purest form of roman communication. it appears that mel may have been privvy to an area of roman history that bock is not. sojourner


02/10/2004 07:26:31 PM

The Gospels were written at a time when it made good sense to cast the Jews and their religion in a bad light, but they also cloud the fact, despite all their later apotheosizing of the Jesus character, that Jesus was probably nothing more then a reformist rabbi with a great deal of charisma who challenged and ultimately incurred the wrath of both the Jewish and Roman leaders. In this he was no different from a number of others who shared the same fate.


02/10/2004 07:21:15 PM

You forgot to add, steve123, that it is almost certainly true as well.


02/10/2004 05:12:39 PM

flutterby108 2/8/04 2:18:15 AM "If the film is true to Scripture, then it must be Anti-Semitic. Pure and simple." And if history writers are true to history, then WWII accounts are anti-German? Wrong, their anti-Nazi-Party (which happened to be Germans of that time). In the same respect, the Gospel accounts aren't condemning all Jews, and for heaven's sake, is not anti-semetic. If anything it is anti-religiosity-pharisee-hypocritical-holier-than-thou leaders of the Jewish religious community at that time.


02/10/2004 05:06:04 PM

Spoken like a true: "Atheist Skeptical Scientific secular humanist/atheist"


02/10/2004 04:18:11 PM

Jesus' 'perfect' fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures came as a result of inventing scenario's for the Gospels' hero so that it would appear that he was foreseen there. In fact, in comparing Jesus' 'fulfillment' in the New Testament with the Old Testament scripture, one can witness a brilliant example of one-up-manship. If an Old Testament character performed a miracle, a Gospel author had Jesus do the same, only bigger and more impressively. After Jesus was long gone, it must have been the easiest thing in the world for the Gospel authors to fit their mythical Jesus into what seemed like the fulfillment of prophecy.


02/08/2004 11:43:29 PM

If Jewish scholars like the Rabbi here would spend half as much time researching how perfectly Jesus fulfilled every single Old Testament prediction of the Jewish Messiah as they do yelling about some imagined slight, when it is straight out of the God's Word, there wouldn't be any need for this discussion. We ALL killed Jesus with our sin, our rebellion against God. Satan will use anti-Semitism charges or any other smokescreen he can to keep people from realizing this truth. Satan is the true anti-Semite. He hates the Jews more than anyone, because they are God's chosen people.


02/08/2004 02:18:15 AM

If the film is true to Scripture, then it must be Anti-Semitic. Pure and simple.


02/03/2004 09:04:06 AM

Visualize saten? should it be that protraying jesus put on the cross enough visualizing of satens charactor,or when mell says i want him to have a real messed up eye,and claims his hands are the ones that nail christ to the cross...or the movie makers decide they have to have something for everyone,i think you can get enough saten fans just so they could also see him nailed to the cross in all the bloody and gore of it...i will wait until it comes out on dvd


02/03/2004 08:56:56 AM

How do you visualize saten? well,thats enough of your article,or wait,your showing that there is something for all,or wait is not puting jesus on the cross enough visualizing of satens charachtor...or mell saying i want jesus to have a real messed up eye,or those was his hands driven in the nails.....i am not a follower of catholics religion myself,and i will wait until it comes out on dvd.....


02/03/2004 08:56:35 AM

How do you visualize saten? well,thats enough of your article,or wait,your showing that there is something for all,or wait is not puting jesus on the cross enough visualizing of satens charachtor...or mell saying i want jesus to have a real messed up eye,or those was his hands driven in the nails.....i am not a follower of catholics religion myself,and i will wait until it comes out on dvd.....


10/13/2003 09:27:38 AM

MBTOC, I never said it did. I simply shared with jrivers my background since he assumed I knew nothing of the Bible. You're assumption, that I believe my "level of education" to be connected with my beliefs is also incorrect. And yes, there are many seminary teachers who are atheists. I've studied under a few who also taught in the grad school I attended. Your point is?


10/11/2003 02:01:44 PM

No-one wants the blame for Jesus death but we are all responsible. As humans we kill the Christ in every moment. Jesus says in His Course in Miracles that every time I feel a stab of aner I hold a sword above my own head. It is my decision to attack or forgive. Jesus was crucified because he threatened the establishment in it's entirety. His teaching is THERE IS NO WORLD....that as an identity seperate from God I don't exist at all. As a threat to the ego(the antichrist,which is me in my own limited identity, as a body in time)my first action is always to blame someone else. Jesus teaching is one of forgiveness, he blamed no one for his crucifixion and saw it as the last useless journey. God knows nothing of it, so who am I to judge? It would have been cool if Mel had invested his 30mil in filming the resurrectiion which is the only message of any value today. See review on www.themiracletimes.com


10/09/2003 11:50:17 AM

The level of your religious education really has very little to do with your belifes. I've heard of seminary teachers who are atheists. ----<--<@


10/04/2003 02:09:55 PM

CONTINUED jlrivers, Gradually departed from and rejected my former Christian beliefs, coming to an understanding of my own gnostic beliefs and adopting that path. Yes, I've read the Bible (in particular here, the Book of Job) mamy times and studied it more than most, not as much as others. I have a very good knowledge of it. I might ask (not assume as you do of me) if you have done the same for any gnostic texts? If so, why not? Before assuming that one who disagrees with you has no knowledge, please assure that person that you have at least read what they have or can speak with some first-hand knowledge on the subject. Anything less shows arrogance and an all-too-often typical Christian hypocritical smugness.


10/04/2003 02:05:44 PM

CONTINUED jlrivers, Attended an old-line holiness Methodist college in Kentucky where I studied, among other Biblical courses, NT Greek and Hebrew (receiveing "A"s in both of those.) Returned home to be a lay minister in my church and continued studying Greek and other Biblical courses with Moody Bible Institute. Began reading the so-called "church fathers" writings about the gnostics and decided to read them for myself. Eventually began studying other religious traditions on my own, and questioning my own beliefs. Returned to college after twenty years to receive a B.A. in Religion and an M.A. in American Religious History specializing in the study of new religious movements.


10/04/2003 02:02:24 PM

jlrivers, Since your posts are addressed to me,I will fill you in so that you do not make assumptions of others in the future that you so smugly make of me. I was raised in an evangelical Christian family where personal and family devotions were the norm morning and evening. I was "saved" at 16. Attended church and other related activities at least four times a week including prayer meetings, streetcorner ministry, and a "Christian coffehouse" (the heyday of the Jesus freak movement)and led Bible study in my high school.


10/04/2003 01:24:54 PM

religionsmajorWU, Yes, I have read a great deal of Heschel including his work on the Hebrew prophets. But you make no real point in citing him. His work was informed by his own Jewish, particularly Hasidic, heritage and he was hardly unbiased. Also, the Hasidic and mystical form of Judaism, as you probably know, views the world as being created with a flaw and we are supposed to be co-workers with "god" in the repairing of the world, "tikkun ha-olam." A very different notion from the Christian view of Yahweh and humanity's role in the divine plan. This is not to denigrate his work. He was indeed a brilliant scholar, ecumenist, and social activist. (When criticized by some of his fellow Jews for marching with Martin Luther King to Selma on the Sabbath, he replied, "I was praying with my feet.") And like you, I have my B.A. in Religion and M.A. in American Religious History. Pmadness


10/03/2003 01:10:32 AM

TO: PROSPEROSMADDNESS .........CONINUTED He did not have a personal knowledge of who God was and His full did not trust fully a God He could not see. Most people today are like Job. I'm sure you can understand that. I also would like to say that if you had read more......God was still in control and therefore added an amendment in Job's case to save Job's life and that is.....Satan could not KILL JOB. In the end, if you bothered to read it. Because Job did not curse God, He was rewarded with blessings of more than he had lost. It is ironic that people who do not have a personal knowledge of a God who wishes to be personal with us, can speak on any subject concerning God. It is like saying I read the book, and the Author is this and the Author is that and never met the Author. Tsk! Tsk! Now that's ludicrist.


10/03/2003 01:10:02 AM

TO: PROSPEROSMADDNESS .........CONTINUED Abraham proved that. Job had fear, which comes from the devil (see chapter 3:25) Job says,..." THE THING I HAVE (past tense) THE MOST HAS COME UPON ME. He trusted God for somethings, but by his own statement, he apparently didn't trust God for everything. Therefore the Spiritual laws that God Himself is governed by and created had to be played out. So because Job is the oldest book in the Bible, most credible scholars concur, didn't know who God was.


10/03/2003 01:09:15 AM

To: PROSPEROSMADDNESS .........CONTINUED If one accepts the sacrifice and finished work of Jesus on Calvary, then one by-passes being held accountable. The debt is paid. Job was never tested. God is goverened by His own words. In the first chapter of Job, God says to Satan.."IT IS WITHIN YOUR POWER"..... Why would God say that to Satan? I'll tell you why, because there is another scripture in the N.T. that says, "FEAR IS NOT OF THE LORD". To fear anything, is not to believe God is all powerful and that you if you put your trust in Him you will not doubt His compassion, Grace, mercy and loving kindness.


10/03/2003 01:08:15 AM

To: PROSPEROSMADDNESS ..........CONTINUED He could pay the price of sin for us. It is barbarity to let your children go to Hell, which was not made for them, but for the devil, just because (even with all the evidence) you believe otherwise. Only a fool says there is no God.. that is a direct quote from the old testament. The highest form of Love is one that is given freely. It is a choice. If God wanted "yes" men or robots he would not have given us something to choose. You have that same right, and by your free choice you have chosen not to believe in God the Son, Jesus. Cruelness and sadism is in the heart of man and it was through a man (garden of Eden) that sin came into this world. When a child is tiny, you never have to teach it to be bad, you find yourself teaching the child to be good. The innate spiritual sin of man is a seed that if brought to fruition will be one day be called into accountablity. ........TO BE CONTINUED


10/03/2003 01:06:40 AM

To PROSPEROSMADDNESS Madness Indeed!!! I would say that was the ultimate COMPASSION." The sacrifice of bulls, goats etc. was a means to cover the sin of the people or persons who sinned, because the penalty of sin is death. I'd say to sacrifice a bull etc. in my place is compassion. Only in your belief is God "aledged" in reality, HE IS. Jesus was named "Emmanuel" one of the titles given him in the gosples. It literally means, "God with Us." Jesus is God and God left His heavenly home to become human so that ...........TO BE CONTINUED


10/02/2003 10:47:01 AM

Btw, the Second Beast is NOT Moses. It almost undoubtedly represents the Roman priesthood that insisted on the worship of the Roman emperor. John the Seer's community was refusing to comply, which is why they were being persecuted. And John of Revelation is NOT the same John of the Gospels (who may not have been names Joh at all - the author isn't named!). Both the Gospel of John and the Johannine epistles are written in excellent Greek, whereas Revaltion is written by someone for whom Greek is their second language. The Gospels hardly care about the end of the world, whereas that's all revelation is conscerned about. John was a very common name, and these texts were unrelated. As for the movie, I think I want to see it myself before making a judgement call one way or the other. I've heard so much conflicting stuff about it.


10/02/2003 10:45:50 AM

Wow - there are still gnostics around? You learn something new every day... What wows me are the people on this forum talking about how YHWH isn't the God of Christianity (how that is even vaguely on topic, I have no idea). Have you read Abraham Heschel? he's a Jewish scholar whose work on the Old Testament prophets is legendary. Reading his take on YHWH, I cannot help but see the exact same God I've always believed in - a God who suffers with his people, not just a wrathful deity the way everyone seemes to protray Him.


10/01/2003 06:52:23 PM

After reading some stuff about the movie on the net-- I wonder if this movie stands an ice cube's chance in hell of getting into American theaters........!


10/01/2003 02:21:04 PM

godechad, I'm not a Christian. Nor am I anti-semitic, if by that you mean am I antagonistic and hateful of semitic peoples. Remember that Arabs, including Palestinians, are of the "semitic" peoples as well as Jews. I do not accept the sovereignty of the tribal god Yahweh. I believe him to be a demiurge, a usurper, one who is ignorant of his own place in the divine cosmos and not the True, Transcendent One who is above all religious dogma and doctrines of the Abrahamic faiths. Those who delight in the worship of that god and who can live good, decent lives in that path, to them I wish peace and success. Many of us, however, will not do so. We have found what we believe to be a higher path for ourselves, one true to ur own divine natures. As a follower of a more solitary gnostic path, I share my message in other ways, most by my life. In the end, I believe we will all be restored to our true Divine Home, returning to the place from which we originally had our existence in the Pleroma. Peace, Pmadness


10/01/2003 11:01:52 AM

God Echad:From what I see, there are not that many claiming to be christian posting on this board. and keep in mind, that even those that claim to be christian, it doesnt mean they are. any "christian" that knows God's word, will never slam Jews but will, instead have a special respect for them as God's chosen people, and this should come across in their words. They will also know that it was humanity's sin that hung Jesus on the cross and nothing else. People can easily throw the word "christian" around, just like alot of other words, but the truth will show up in their words and deeds. Jewish people may choose not to believe in Jesus as their Messiah, but their God is the same as our God as He is the only one for all people. He is still the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. God bless!


10/01/2003 10:42:18 AM

Norm uk, Thank you for explaining YHVH. I was going to, then I saw you did.


10/01/2003 10:39:39 AM

The God of the Jews is the one and true God. There is no other. The God of the Jews is the God of all people. There is so much anti-semitism here on this message board. What kind of Christians are you people? If that is the measure of what a Christian is, I'm glad I'm not one.


10/01/2003 10:37:19 AM

to digital843, during the time of the Romans, they would gather the prisoners together once a year and let the people of the community decide who would die that year. Of the prisoners, only one person would die. Jesus is not the "god" or "king" of the Jews. Why would they feel they needed to save him over another man?


10/01/2003 04:29:55 AM

digital843: If you can provide secular, empirical evidence that a man called Jesus, the son of Joseph from Nazereth was crucified by the Romans, who were coerced into doing it despite being the world power of the time I'll be ready to listen to you. I'm sorry, but ambigious documents written over a hundred years after Jesus supposedly lived would not hold up in a court of law, no matter how many 'after the fact' witnesses written testimonies were available.


10/01/2003 04:21:19 AM

OK Ariel, let's say you are 100% correct (I will of course, be checking your sources). So the God of the bible is, like the Muslim God, a throwback to older, pagan tradition. So we may as well do away with the entire bible....especial since we are sure that the Gospels borrowed heavily from mystery babylonian, mythra type faiths with parallels in Zoroastrianism and Buddism. How can we be sure of any of it Ariel? Also, how El Jewish propoganda? I mean, do you speak Hebrew and know what El means in Hebrew? Are the Jews doing to El what the Arabs did to Allah? And by that reasoning are Christians doing to the same thing with Krishna/Christos?


09/30/2003 11:27:12 PM

Now look at Revelation chapter 13 and see how John attacks the god of the Jews with Moses as the second Beast.. People are only scratching the surface of John's anti-Judaism theology because they do not know the ancient history of Canaanite and Babylonian gods. Gnostics did know enough of it to know they were being swindled by Jewish scribes and priests into worshipping a false god.


09/30/2003 11:26:48 PM

norm, until you understand that John was highly, not lightly, anti-Jewish, anti-Judaism, anti-the god of the Jews, you won't understand his gospel or the real intent of the Christian revolt begun by Yeshu-Jesus against the schizoid god of Isreal. John's anti-Judaism theme gets full-blown in Revelation but highly symbolized until you know the history of Yahweh prior to his fraudulent usurpation of the title EL held as God Most High. Sure, if you stick with Jewish propaganda you can say "oh, "EL" is just the generic name for God but there's a whole different story when you check out the pre-Hebrew ancient Canaanite texts where you discover the personality of EL is quite a bit different from that of one of His sons, Yamm, Prince Sea and god of Chaos, who, btw, was renamed by EL to Yah or Yahwu, i.e., the origin of Yahweh is as a sea-monster god exactly like Tiamat, Lothan, Leviathan, and Rahab..


09/30/2003 10:20:18 PM

Why do people keep saying the Romans, not the Jews killed Jesus. The Jews would have but Roman law prevented them so they pressured Pilate who was reluctant to condemn Jesus. The crucifixion was orchestrated by the Jews even if they utilized Roman muscle.


09/30/2003 03:05:02 AM

Good for you ariel, sadly most Christians, Jews and Moslems would not agree with you at all - and most scholars would question your sources, as would I. I personally am annoyed by your ramblings, and I say this with respect, not childish bitterness. To be honest, I don't see how someone with your beleif would benefit from posting in a Christian or Jewish forum. Since 'Yaweh' is not found in Hebrew, only the letters "YHVH" your comments are irrelevant. El or Elohim literally means 'Gods, God or great/powerful one/s" in Hebrew - even kings, judges and men can be Elohim. Now, let's go back to this film no one has seen but seems to know everything about it.


09/30/2003 01:26:32 AM

i believe a combination of jealosy and well-intentioned or not so well-intentioned judgement were instrumental in Jesus being condemned as is the case with most condemnation in general. power brokers of multiple origins felt that Jesus was a threat or mistaken or both. some felt a need to defend doctrine/faith. some felt that in order to preserve status quo/their position-power that Jesus would have be to be 'out of the way'. Sin is the reason Jesus died on the cross. He chose to lay down His life in order that we might have eternal life through Him via His resurrection. Pilate and other authorities - willing or not, wittingly or not - are the tools used to accomplish the task. Let's not fight about it, eh? What's done is done. Let's move on - to the glory and the life that awaits God's faithful. $.02/.01 Jesus' peace, e.t./sue < :) :)


09/29/2003 11:47:57 PM

ariel... I have had the same experience you have had...and I spent 3 days in a Psych ward because no-one seems to think that The One could possibly have contacted me. Glad to know I'm not alone. And thanks for all your wealth of information. I have learned a great deal about Yeshu from you. Peace and Love to ALL


09/29/2003 08:34:47 PM

It is the perennial job of prophets to "make straight the path of God", to untwist the knots and contradictions of scriptures and get the picture clear of what God wants of us TODAY, not yesterday, i.e., not stuff that ancient men thought God wanted from us back in ancient days.. God is God of the living, not the dead..I serve the Living God who cannot be found in only one people's religious beliefs..


09/29/2003 08:34:27 PM

Because I wouldn't be here today without my Jewish ancestors I must credit them for carrying through at least some of the major spiritual concepts God has been trying to instill in us human beings, e.g. the sacrifice of power for love by those who would rule and the need to serve the lowest of society as well as the highest so that all benefit. These things are all present in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions but all coupled with the schizophrenia of Yahweh or whatever the the god of Abraham is, a composite of Yamm, Moloch, and Baal, but certainly lower down in wisdom and compassion from EL the Compassionate One of ancient Canaan.


09/29/2003 08:33:51 PM

Now, after 24 years of periodic revelations and historical researching, I have untwisted the knots of the historical record of the formation of Judaism and Christianity, at least to my own satisfaction, and trace my own Messianic belief system all the way back to ancient Canaan with later Israelites or Jews being the pack horse carrying this Messianic concept onward through time until Yeshu-Jesus fulfilled it as it was originally intended to be, i.e., the Messiah as "Immanuel" or literally "EL is with us". One has to research the historical record to find out that EL, God Most High, was never Yahweh, the later Israelite forged imposter who was originally one of the sons of EL in the Canaanite pantheon.


09/29/2003 08:32:46 PM

Hi Norm uk, I am of Jewish descent but through a Spanish Jewish Converso family as far I can tell so no Judaism tradition in my family for hundreds of years. I would be an atheist today except for a profound religious conversion experience I went through for three days during Easter of 1979. I discovered the reality of the spiritual world of God in this experience which came through three days of non-stop synchronicity experiences one right after the other that overwhelmed me with God's ability to "arrange" my world to that these events happened. But God didn't convert me to traditional Judaism or Christianity but to a modern form of Gnostic Christianity, something that took me a year afterwards to discover once the Nag Hammadi Library book was published in English in 1980.


09/28/2003 08:17:27 PM

The polemics I read here must be evidence that Reincarnation and Karma are alive and well. I see Iraneaus and his ilk along with the Gnostics of the grand Pleroma. Now that the Roman Empire is gone, Gnostics and the ortho-Christians may continue their friendly debates, just like the good ol' days of the 2nd century CE.


09/28/2003 02:07:34 AM

"It is loving relationships that distinguish human beings from animals, the ability to love more than one's own, one's own kind, a concept foreign to Judaism " To which branch of Judaism do you refer ariel (whose name is Hebrew - the language of Jews). Also, if Christianity is love, why must Christians evangelise their faith and seek to prove others wrong? Is that love? To have no respect for fellow humans faith and ways. Need we be reminded of the murder, inquisitions and pogroms of Christianity, or it's scathing attacks on Jews, Muslims and Pagans who will not accept Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour?


09/28/2003 02:03:50 AM

arielmessenger: I have read your comments on the three Abrahamic faiths in other disscussions and am curious why you would accept any of them when you constantly attack and scourge them as primitive, evil and backwards.


09/26/2003 08:32:33 PM

I consider my Christianity as "Simple Torah Christianity" i.e., based on the two Great Commandments with the addition of John's definition of God as love. So "Love love with all your heart, with all your mind and with all your soul" for God is love. It is loving relationships that distinguish human beings from animals, the ability to love more than one's own, one's own kind, a concept foreign to Judaism


09/26/2003 08:32:11 PM

We may never know if Yeshu ben Pantera ever renounced Judaism. He was killed by rabbinic authority for blasphemy and when one reads how Yeshu received this death sentence it gives the motivation for the fierce anti-pharisee statements of Jesus in the New Testament. Since the NT Jesus is a forgery we don't know his real sentiments about obeying the Mitzvot laws although we do know he deliberately broke them and whittled the meaning of them and the Ten Commandments down to two Great Commandments which really do say all that is necessary to lead a moral life.


09/26/2003 04:12:53 PM

Johndeem, The Mosaic Law spelled out in the Hebrew scriptures are made up of far more than the so-called "10 Commandments." Read Leviticus to see just how stringent this code of law was/is. The "10 Commandments" was only the beginning. It is a code of law given by an angry, petty, jealous, demiurge. Not that of the True, Ineffable, Transcendent One.


09/26/2003 03:00:18 PM

'Sounds like the argument here is not with the film, but with the Gospels themselves. Anyone objecting to this portrayal, should read the Gospels and see if the film is accurate to them. It might also be helpful to read them in light of what Jesus was trying to teach about Judaism. He wasn't trying to start an anti-Jewish religion. He never renounced Judaism. I think Jesus was trying to teach us a higher way to obey the Law (Mosaic that is), or perhaps a simpler, purer way. He was for obeying the Law through the practice of unconditional love, yet Judaism had expanded the 10 commandments into a plethora of laws and practices that didn't necessarily cultivate love. For instance: read the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) in terms of a teaching of how to obey the 10 commandments in our thoughts and deeds, not just in words or perfunctory practices. Respectfully, John


09/26/2003 02:22:58 PM

In God's mysterious way the Old World Holy Land spiritual power has been transferred across the sea to the New World as I and my daughter are now prophesy bearers of a vision of Christ Josephine who came to us independently of any knowledge of White Buffalo Calf Woman but who we have sinced learn is the same Spirit Woman. The Sign was confirmed when my daughter and I found out that she had inadvertently marriage a white boy who just so happened to be a direct descendent of the Lakota's most famous chief, Crazy Horse, and so now my grandchildren are direct descendents of Crazy Horse. I am in contact now with Lakota's bearer of the White Buffalo Calf Woman tradition but this spiritual news comes exactly at the time Lakotas are in a fierce battle to resist all white infringement on their traditions like the Sweat Lodge and Sun Dance which whites have exploited to make money. Very interesting times..the full story of this will be in my updated website when it goes back online probably next week..


09/26/2003 02:22:36 PM

Ishtar made an appearance to the Lakota people many centuries ago coming as White Buffalo Calf maiden with warrior power to bring fire from heaven down upon one of two Lakota men who would rape Her representing all of Nature and the Feminine. The Lakota learned and now there have been two major signs of Her prophesized return, the signal of which was the birth of a white buffalo.


09/26/2003 02:10:06 PM

Asherah is that Goddess in our religious traditions based on ancient Middleastern belief systems and also Ishtar for only these two Goddesses, Mother and Daughter managed to make it through the Judeo-Christian war against the Goddess. Asherah is present in the Biblical traditions as the Tree of Life found in the beginning in Genesis and all the way to the end in Revelation. Ishtar is present through the celebration of Jesus' cruxifixion and descent to hell and resurrection..Easter is Ishtar and the celebration through all these years is done with Ishtar's pagan methods, e.g. hot-cross buns (raisin cakes and the whole story of Jesus mythological descent and resurrection as a direct copy of the same motif of Ishtar rescue of Marduk and Astarte's rescue of Baal.


09/26/2003 02:09:33 PM

Dear all who Know that Abrahamic faiths have made war with the Feminine aspect of the Holy One of Heaven and Earth, there is now revelation that brings back the Feminine face of God. It isn't a revelation of Sophia or the Shekkenah as these two Spirits of the Feminine have been so reduced in material power and restricted only to the spiritual realm that they cannot contain the full Feminine energy of God as Great Goddess. Only a Goddess connected to the material world can do that.


09/26/2003 11:04:15 AM

Hi fish, It seems that way, doesn't it? But I think that that is because the co-called "church" has not only allowed but helped to promote the idea of an allegedly "loving" heavenly father who, if any of his children rejects his bloody mess, will consign them to a torment in hell for eternity! But I believe that is a corrupt image of our heavenly father.I also know that one cannot have a "father" without having a "mother." The ancient gnostics knew this as did (and do) many far more spiritually aware religious traditions form many cultures around the world. Even the Roman Catholic Church, recognizing that people would simply not abandon their worship of our hevenly "mother" incorporated her worship into their tradition in the form of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Here's a link to a wonderful message about the holy Sophia, the gnostic feminine image of the Divine and her relationship to Mary. Descent of the Holy Sophia


09/26/2003 01:56:15 AM

sweetness, ariel & prospero... Count me another kindred spirit. I am finding there are many of us now. BTW...speaking of being fathers, what about the Mother? I've been getting the vibe lately that God is a COMBINATION and we've been bullied and punished by the "Father" and now it's time for "Mamma" to step in and clean everything up and make everyone behave. But you guys have got it together. I have more hope knowing that you're out there. Peace and Love to ALL


09/25/2003 10:54:31 PM

dfass: "Frankly, I don't understand the "suffering" fetish. If Jesus indeed was crucified, then there is little doubt that he suffered. But did he suffer more than all the other poor sods who met their ends on the Roman cross?..." I often wonder the same things myself. An excellent question. The closest I've been able to find to an answer to this, is in the writings of certain modern theologians, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Jurgen Moltmann, about God's participation in the suffering of humankind. In this view, God does not inflict pain and death, nor is He/She indifferent to it. God suffers *with* humanity's pain and grief. In the Christian perspective, Jesus' death is therefore a symbol of God's solidarity with human suffering--the idea that God died, shows God's participation in human pain and death. (By the way, I'm part of the "Church Alumni Association," so don't think I'm proselytizing here!)


09/25/2003 10:44:04 PM

(cont'd from below) This also applies to speculations as to Pilate's motives in killing Jesus; they're just that--speculations. Even the Gospels themselves are pretty vague about Pilate's intentions. The upshot, then, is that nobody knows 100% for certain what really happened to lead to Jesus' death. What is reliable, however, is to look at the track record of Roman rule in Palestine; the social context; and Roman leaders' attitudes toward potential threats to their authority. It doesn't take a genius to surmise what got Jesus killed: Would-be messiahs, especially those with a popular following, were dead meat. This, incidentally, explains why Jesus was so reluctant to declare himself "Messiah" or "Son of God" (at least in the Synoptic Gospels). Instead Jesus uses the vague term "Son of Man," which could allude to the "one like a Son of Man" in Daniel; but could also imply just "a man" in general...


09/25/2003 10:33:01 PM

b-baggins: Thanks for your historical information on crucifixion. "If you read the biblical account, the Jewish leaders accused Christ of sedition to Pilate. They wanted him executed...." Perhaps so. But you missed my point, and the point others have made: The Gospels were written over 30 years after the events, and so cannot be relied upon for complete accuracy in all details. (This explains why the Gospels differ in certain details, from the birth narratives to the resurrection stories.) Furthermore, they weren't intended to be "objective" in the sense we think of it. A close reading of the Gospels shows how the different authors emphasized different parts of Jesus' message, in keeping with the particular theme they wished to convey. So when the Gospels say the Jewish leaders handed over Jesus to Pilate, it's impossible to say for certain whether that really happened.


09/25/2003 09:31:36 AM

Arielmessenger, Nice to see meet a kindred spirit. The suppression by the early so-called "orthodox" Christian leaders (Irenaeus,etc.)of the many gnostic writings was the downfall of that movement. Despite its continued arrogance that it alone has the "truth," it is only a corrupt image of what the real religious teachings of Jesus were. But gnosis itself, despite the efforts of the alleged "church, cannot be suppressed and those seekers of Truth who are not content with simple, "believe this,get saved and washed in the blood" answers will always be led by the spirit of holy Sophia to the recognition of their true life as sparks of the Divine, children of the Light. "The one who seeks should not cease seeking until he finds. And when he finds, he wil be dismayed. And when he is dismayed, he will be astonished. And he will be king over the All." (The Gospel of Thomas, Saying 2) If you haven't read it, you might enjoy "The Gnostic Jung" by Stephan Hoeller. Pmadness


09/24/2003 08:39:52 PM

Prospero, couldn't have said it better myself. You know the truth! Perhaps Ariel, the good air spirit told you maybe! Ariel, Lion of God, Messenger of Peace, spiritual Jerusalem (the Hebrew meaning of "Ariel") inform me or so I believe as this archetypal spiritual energy complex (or "angel") has been guiding my religious life towards Gnosis of the Holy One for some 24 years. Yahweh at best is schizophrenic giving both love and hate commandments but this ancient primitive belief in the efficacy of blood sacrifice that stems directly from ancient knowledge that blood sprinkled on the soil fertilized it and made crops grow better so blood sacrifice is what a primitive god wants. But I too am a father and any god who came along and asked me to sacrifice my children I would say go to hell--you are no god worthy of respect and that is the Gnostic position re Yahweh, another fire war god along the order of Moloch and Chemosh, all three noted for demanding sacrifices of firstborn sons..


09/24/2003 08:26:33 PM

"I would say that was the ultimate COMPASSION." An alleged "god" who demands a blood sacrifice (whether bulls, goats, children or even his supposedly "perfect" son) is not showing compassion. It is barbarity, no different than the blood sacrifices of the many religions that practice it and which are condemned by Christianity as "barbaric" and "savage" or "sinful." Placing the temptation of the"Tree of the the Knowledge of Good and Evil" in the garden was cruel and sadistic.The testing of Abraham was cruelty and sadistic. The testing of Job, prompted by a wager between this "god" and Satan was likewise. These are not the acts of a compassionate and loving "heavenly father." (Legends though they be) I'm a father. And if I acted this way towards my own children, I'd be rightfully convicted of child abuse. They are the acts of a demiurge, a usurper, not the ultimate God in whom we live and move and have our being.


09/24/2003 08:16:17 PM

to arielmessenger, the final Quest! In order for some people to feel good about what they pursue in life even though they know down deep it is wrong, they fashion comments to dispel the only Truth that would free them. I fear you are repeating that same error. Just own up what your heart really desires, nail it to the cross and thank God it's been paid. ( and I've heard all the pladitudes ...so spare me) In my life I have found one common denominator for most of the rejection of God is and that is SIN. Yup, sin. Man loves to sin and doesn't want a Creator to tell them it's wrong. So they have created a world of "wrong is right" and "right is wrong". The payment for sin is death eternal. If that is what you want then so be it. But please spare us your unexpertise on a matter you have no experience in. A man without experience is no match for one that has.


09/24/2003 08:02:46 PM

to arielmessenger .....continuation Abe knew he was being tested and he passed the test. Thank God he did. True compassion was seen in the God the Father Himself when he sacrificed His only son, Jesus to become an payment for YOURS and MY SINS. I would say that was the ultimate COMPASSION... so that you and I don't have to pay that price for eternity once we accept that sacrifice and except God's son.


09/24/2003 08:02:11 PM

to arielmessenger With all the supposed research you did, you neglected to find out that all these interpretaions of who the one true God was only goes to show you that before Moses, no one knew who was this one and only true God. Man has, since the beginning of time fashioned for himself (emphasis on "self") gods that suited his purposes. The only time we ever get a glimpse of who God is... is when moses finds out on Mount Sinai. YHWH....btw is the correct letters. Yes, letters. Man, once again, tries to make sense his way. So he puts vowels. Abraham TRUSTED GOD. In the trip to mount Mariah, Abe turns to his servants and said, "WE will be back". ..... to be continued


09/24/2003 07:56:17 PM

For true believer Christians who do not understand what it means to sacrifice one's children for a god, I highly recommend the movie "Rapture" starring Mimi Rogers and David Duchonow or whatever his name is. This movie shows the Gnostic stance against such a god and it a stance all Abrahamic religionists should think about before they honor a god that demands the sacrifice of one's own son.


09/24/2003 07:49:52 PM

Please look up the Catholic Encyclopedia Online to find out the relationship of Melchizedek to the Ammonite fire war god Moloch. Also, check out the Moabite fire god Chemosh. And of course Baal, the Canaanite storm war god. These sub-gods were the competitors of Yahweh, himself another fire war god. And they really liked firstborn sons sacrificed to them which is the basis of Judeo-Christian faith in God, i.e. willingness to sacrifice one's son as evidence of love of God more than one's own children. Very sick to the morality that must be replaced with true compassion


09/24/2003 07:49:31 PM

One is led to believe it is EL Elyon, the Canaanite God Most High, because Jacob, Abraham's grandson built an altar dedicated to the God he met, that altar being called "Beth-el" or "House of EL". but checking with ancient Canaanite religious texts produces a much different God Most High than the terrible one who makes Abraham make the choice no moral God would ever do, i.e., chose God over one's son. EL the Compassionate One, EL the Kindly One, EL the Father of Humanity would never do such a thing, not a word inscribed in ancient Canaanite texts has EL threatening or condemning human beings yet it was to EL that Canaanites turned to for forgiveness. The concept of the Messiah as a Son of God begins in ancient Canaan where the earthly king was to model EL's compassionate and wise rulership. Yahweh was one of the sons of EL in the Canaanite pantheon. .


09/24/2003 07:48:54 PM

O that did all worship the same God.. This is yet more reason that Abrahamic faith religionists to do some historical research about the people and times that produced the Abrahamic stories found in the Tanach or OLD Testament, and Koran. Moloch and Chemosh demanded firstborn son sacrifices and Moab king Mesha sacrificed his son to win a victory over Israelites on the inscribed Moab Stone recording his exploits. That same stone tells of "Dawidum" of the Benjamites and that is where "David" comes from: It was a title not a personal name that meant "Chieftain", "Commander", "Captain". "House of David" meant the house of the Chief. But back to Abraham...interesting stuff about the God of Abraham..who was this god?


09/24/2003 07:32:57 PM

to ariadne hopefully the last continuation..... Go where science goes (expect those scientist that are atheist) TO THE BIBLE. They do not use the Talmud to validate what happened in History, they use the Bible. Abba Father "gave" His son as a sacrifice for the sins of man (Jew/and Gentile alike). So it was a sentence given by God that He asked His son to pay, and Jesus said Yes. But God used the Jewish sanhedrien to do it. BTW, Caiphas was appointed high priest ( a political appt.) he was not of the Levite priest hold, therefore not a valid High priest set in the traditions passed down that was originally from God. Neither was Herod (rightful heir also political appt.). If you really want the truth, study higher critisim not just a coffee clatch discussion.


09/24/2003 07:32:16 PM

to ariadne ....continued from last post In the new testament it explains what the old testament contains. At a time pass a science was created called Archeology. It's main purpose was to discredit, or disprove the Bible accounts as mere myth. Over the years a great transformation has taken place, this science now uses the Bible to validate their historical findings. So dear friend, one need not look to the Talmud for explanation. ... to be continued in next post


09/24/2003 07:30:54 PM

to ariadne Interesting! The whole of the Jewish religion has it's foundation built on faith, right? The books of the Law are the first five books, right? ( in the Bible). The talmuds are comments by religious leaders of that time and their commentaries of what they thought the scriptures meant. Of course no one except the Kings, Prophets and Priests heard from God before the death of Jesus Christ ( although I knowwwww you beg to differ) so the common Jew had to rely on these guys to tell them what God was saying. Unfortunately when the higher up's in the faith, mostly the( sinning nation of Israel at various times) Kings didn't like what the Prophets said, they had them put to death, right? The Bible in the New testament confirms what Isaiah wrote in the old testament (" he was pierced for my transgressions") the mode of death and by what hands Jesus was crucified. to be continued on another post


09/24/2003 05:06:56 PM

If something was written about a Yehsu's story 100 years before Jesus Christ's time, how could it be a factual admission of the Jews killing Jesus Christ? In Jesus's time, some Jewish leaders conspired and incited some Roman authorities to execute somebody they feared and hated as a troublemaker and a threat to their authority. There are anti-Christian passages in the Talmud but they come from the time when Christianity and Judaism were splitting into two separate faiths. There was acrimony on both sides at that time. It was a sad breach between two of the thee great Abrahamic faiths that ought to finally be healed. They all worship the same God.


09/24/2003 03:52:16 PM

What do I believe? I believe the responsibility for Christ's death is with all humanity. The Temple establishment, not the "Jews" were immediately responsible. They prevailed upon Pilate to crucify Christ. In Zeferelli's film, as in Saint Mark's version of the trial, the High Priest asks Jesus if He is the Son of God and Jesus says "I am, you shall see the Son of Man come in Glory..." Zeferelli has Caiphas answer "Hear O, Israel the Lord God is One." Caiphas tears his robes at the blasphemy and notes that there is no further need of witnesses--Jesus condemned Himself with His own testimony. Jesus is condemned under the Law for equating Himself with God. This situation was set up by Him from the Beginning. The cleansing of the Temple was a deliberate provocation. His confrontations with the Pharisees, Saduccees, and the Temple authority were part of the Divine plan. Humanity's closed, sinful, loveless, intolerant, broken heart crucified Him.


09/24/2003 03:05:18 PM

To arielmessenger: You say that "The most virulent anti-Christian commentaries have been removed from modern editions of the Talmud but the fact that they are there at all with all the blame Jews have taken for Jesus' death..." It is not correct that anti-Christian rhetoric has been removed from "modern" editions of the Talmud. The Talmud was originally censored by medieval Christian authorities. I believe that some modern editions of the Talmud are now reincorporating the censored material. You may wish to find one of these editions.


09/24/2003 02:55:10 PM

Frankly, I don't understand the "suffering" fetish. If Jesus indeed was crucified, then there is little doubt that he suffered. But did he suffer more than all the other poor sods who met their ends on the Roman cross? Did he suffer more that the mother in Ethiopia who loses her 5 children to starvation? Did he suffer more that the poor souls who had their bodies torn limb from limb by the sadists of the Inquisition? Did he suffer more than the skeletalized prisoners of Nazi work camps? There has always been a tremendous amount of suffering in the world. God knows the Catholic Church has caused its share. Indeed, how many thousands of people did the medieval Catholic Church itself debase, torture, and ultimately murder (sorry... "save"), and that in a manner far more brutal than the crucifixion of Jesus. Why is the suffering of Jesus such a big hoo-ha? If you want to say there was a unique metaphysical dimension to Jesus' suffering, then why the obvious fixation on the physical blood and gore?


09/24/2003 02:33:30 PM

ariel, Very interesting and something I've never heard about. What is talmudic and where can I research further? Sorry for the interuption of dialog.


09/24/2003 02:23:09 PM

But Yeshu's family story carries the main character names for the later Hellenized Roman Jesus story, complete with journey to Egypt, inns, and accusations of harlot only for Muriam, not Mary Magdalene, as she was accused of adultery with a Roman mercenary named Joseph ben Pantera in Aramaic. Yeshu and his five disciples, among them Matthias and Toda or Thaddueus of the New Testament account were accused of blasphemy and stoned to death and then Yeshu was hung from a tree. This happened a hundred years before the time of Christ but it explains why Paul finds already established Christian churches in Asia Minor and explains how Christians appeared in Rome so early after Jesus's supposed death. Hellenized Jews or Romans created Jesus Christ out of legends of Yeshu ben Pantera.


09/24/2003 02:22:34 PM

Ariadne1, there is truth in what you say but after some 24 years of off and on delving into the search for the historical Jesus, after debating with Jesus Seminar fellows about this information, I now feel quite comfortable with the Talmudic accounts of Yeshu ben Pantera, "son of a panther"! btw.." aka Yeshu ben Joseph ben Pantera, son of Miriam the hairdresser, that title in Aramaic being the one mistaken for "magdalene". The Talmudic accounts are very oblique and their history of exposure is not well known outside of Jewish and Christian scholarship. The most virulent anti-Christian commentaries have been removed from modern editions of the Talmud but the fact that they are there at all with all the blame Jews have taken for Jesus' death has led this Jewish Christian to believe these stories carry some actual historical documentation of a fellow named Yeshu that got into big trouble with his rabbis long before the time of Jesus.


09/24/2003 10:35:23 AM

You know, all these people are criticizing the film / text and failing to remember one key fact: JESUS WAS JEWISH. The story isn't about anti-semitism. If you read close enough, hell, if you read it at face value, you know that it's not about discrimination at all. Instead this is a story of a man being betrayed by the very people he saves. It doesn't paint humanity in a very favorable light but it's true and that's why it's so scary. Let me put this down for you, whether your Judeo, Christian, Muslim, you gotta understand that Jesus died for OUR sins. He believed that by martyring himself he was saving mankind. There was no promise of 50 virgins in the deal. You gotta respect that. Whether he really was the son of God is irrellavent.


09/24/2003 10:29:21 AM

Ariel, I think a lot of the Talmudic stories are also legends and interpetations as well as debates and speculations among the rabbis and so shouldn't be taken any more literally than the Bible.


09/24/2003 10:18:24 AM

Ariel -- What is the talmudic story you're refering to, and why was Jesus call "ben pantera"? Son of pants?


09/24/2003 10:17:55 AM

Prosperousmadness, I'm not a literalist. The book I cited basically debunks Biblical inerrancy. You'd truly like it. It's point is that there is little archeological evidence for believing that the OT stories are historically true. That was my point. I won't dispute that the ancient Israelities conquered other tribes or fought wars or even that they were brutal. But the truth is that they were no more bloodthirsty or warmongering than other tribes in the area. And they were, in fact, a small, frequently conquered nation themselves, often occupied or exiled. The stories they told of great victories and massacres should be taken with a grain of salt. They were imitating other peoples in their area who were actually often stronger and more successful than they were at fighting and conquering.


09/24/2003 12:52:42 AM

The fact of the history of Christian persecution of Jews because of the crucifixion story in the New Testament makes me believe the Talmud stories about Yeshu ben Pantera contain more truth than the Gospels. Why on earth would Jewish spiritual authorities claim responsibility for Yeshu's death in these usually hidden from Gentile eyes Talmudic accounts if they weren't true? Of course rabbis don't talk about those Talmudic texts to Gentile audiences but here and there in history they became known to Gentile and one can almost see the periodic outbreaks of Anti-Judaism in past Christian community response to the Anti-Gentilism, Anti-Christ sentiments found in the Talmudic commentaries. This posting will of course be seen as "Anti-Semitic" by my fellow Jews even though I follow the teachings of another Jew, Yeshu ben Pantera aka Jesus Christ.


09/24/2003 12:50:25 AM

Ask your friends if they've ever had events in dreams come true in real life or mysterious sets of the same name reappearing within a short span of time breaking the rules of probability but often having a powerful psychological meaning to whoever experiences them. But back to the Story of Jesus.. One of the main reasons I believe the Talmudic accounts of Yeshu ben Pantera point to the historical Jesus is that in these accounts Jews make no bones about slaying this man and his five followers for blasphemy. Yeshu was slain per Jewish law, stoned to death and then hung on a tree, a reference which can be seen in Paul's letter. According to the account Yeshu was buried in a cabbage patch in Lydda. End of story until later day Hellenized Jews following the Sayings of this fellow created a completely different account having Jesus tried by Romans with Jews handing him over.


09/24/2003 12:37:28 AM

Truly amazing how little people know about the histories of their religious beliefs as they swallow impossible tales as if somehow the world of the ancients followed supernatural laws instead of physical ones we are familiar with as are all forms of life who have evolved to meet such real physical circumstances and not meet events where snakes speak, humans live for hundreds of years, ancient women give birth, seas dry up, men walk on water and rise bodily from the dead. There are miracles all right, but everyone misses them because they expect these Hollywood fantasy tales instead of looking for the little ways God really does intervene in our world. It can be seen in those mysterious synchronicity events that happen to most of us at some time or another in our lives. The synchronicity events that direct your attention to spiritual matters are God signs, God's Sign Language, and they happen for real.


09/24/2003 12:35:17 AM

Shore30, And why is it you assume that those of us who don't "believe" the Bible (as you appear read it, any way)"know nothing" about it? I spent the first 23 years of my life growing up in a fundamentalist Christian home. I practically lived at our church. I was "saved" at 13.I attended Bible studies, led Bible studies, preached in church and in public, attended a Christian college where I studied NT Greek among other Biblical courses. Eventually, I found that I simply did not believe what I had been taught. To put it simply, I changed my mind. But, imo, I can still go toe-to-toe with any evangelical or fundamentalist Christian when it comes to the Bible. Please don't assume that just because there are some of us who don't believe and say so, that we know nothing about the Bible. I'd leave the judging up to the god you believe in.


09/23/2003 09:49:44 PM

I belive the hole living word of GOD! One GOD who has the name of JESUS! Baptize under water in JESUS name! speaking in tounges!As long as i live my life acording to the BIBLE GOD will giude me like a son of a KING!I put all my trust in GOD!I belive in GOD!


09/23/2003 09:16:37 PM

Why is that people who know nothing about the Bible try to prove it is tales or just a myth or whatever else they can call it. The Bible does not say the Jews killed Jesus. Its the same as Jesus if lust in your heart to it fruition in your mind then it is considered a fact. John 19:30 reads, "He (Jesus) gave up the ghost or his spirit (life). No Jew, Gentile, MOslem or anyone else can disprove one word of the Hebrew or Greek text. Can six writers give in detail the same story? Of course not. Two Rabbis will not agree on everything. Check the Mishnah (HIllel & Shammai) Accept it as it is or leave it alone for those who do believe.


09/23/2003 06:41:49 PM

ariadne1: The stories in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures are just that - stories. They were/are used as illustrations to humans to show how G-d worked in and through the lives of individuals. To take them as literal, historical fact is to ignore the richness of the literature of the time and the genius with which they were written.


09/23/2003 04:15:44 PM

Ariadne, I said nothing about burning bushes, mass exodus form Egypt, plagues, parting of the Red Sea, etc. Yes, they are tall tales. But I believe there is at least some factual basis for the wars that the Jews waged on other nations in the name of their God. I don't believe in the so-called "miracles" of either the Old or New Testament. Historically, I think the preponderance of evidence proves that a man named Jeus existed, and had an obvious impact on religioous thought. But his alleged virgin birth, resurrection from the dead, and the alleged "miracles" have no basis in historical fact as far as I have been shown. And because archaeologists unearth ancient sites mentioned in the Bible does not give credence to any miraculous events surrounding those places or people. Pmadness


09/23/2003 02:54:41 PM

Prosperosmadness, Let me see, you don't believe the "myths" about Jesus in the Bible, yet you believe all the tall tales about Jews leaving Egypt in a vast exodus and then murdering and conquering Canaanites to inhabit their land in the Old Testament, even though much of that has no historical basis or evidence? So, do you buy the burning bush and the parting of the Red Sea too? And if you do, then why don't you believe the Jesus myths, aIs it not possible, that it's all myths and legends? Please read The Bible Unearthed by Neil Asher Silberman and Isael Finkelstein.s you put it?


09/23/2003 02:52:24 PM

You may be right rbethell....I haven't seen it or seen the overall context, so I'm not in a position to judge. Since the film seems to focus on the dying days of Jesus, I have no idea if the women in the scenes are there as tearful, minor role supporters or "what". It just "red flags" it for me when male God=good and Satan=bad=female particularly when this film is touted as trying to be true to a "biblical" account. Is Satan portrayed as female biblically? Perhaps other scholars can tell me better.


09/23/2003 01:59:26 PM

chanteuse - assuming this is a Catholic film (which there is good reason to suggest), the second most saintly figure the film will have will be Mary the Mother of Jesus, followed closely by the apostle to the apostles, Mary Magdalene, with whom the film will close supposedly. It is a difficult argument to make that women are portrayed badly in this film.


09/23/2003 01:12:06 PM

What I find interesting is that the author notes that when it came to portraying Satan, this androgynous figure just happens to turn out to be a WOMAN. How biblical is that? NOT. Why didn't they just keep the figure of Satan androgynous or male (eg. Lucifer), I wonder. While I suppose the movie makers were trying to get away from an accusation of an anti-female bias by avoiding the issue throughout most of the movie, I'm guessing they wanted some female role in the movie and gosh darn, why not the anti-Christ? That should balance all that saintly male movie testosterone. Thanks a lot Mel.


09/23/2003 12:14:34 PM

Everyone keeps repeating the traditional story that Jewish leaders pressured Pilate into killing Jesus. But the Gospels contain a lot of information to contradict this. On the first post in this thread, I pointed out that the Greek Gospels do not say that Judas betrayed Jesus. It's a mistranslation. Wm. Klassen has done the most to fight to correct this. But even conservative Catholic scholars like Raymond Brown and John Meier admit this. See my blogspot on Sept.19 for more -- http://historicaljesusghost.blogspot.com -- so the priests did not collaborate with a traitor because Judas was not a traitor. There are even more hints in the Gospels. John 18:3 says Roman soldiers were at Jesus' arrest, which means Romans were in charge. John 18:19-24 also does not indicate a trial. This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you read the Gospels carefully, there is an abundance of clues that Jewish leaders did not persecute Jesus. But no one cares what the Gospels say.


09/23/2003 11:50:49 AM

I am really looking forward to watching this movie. I think the events of Jesus' death can be taken literally. There is a lot of historical details in the story that even scientists can't explain. The Passion is not a story about who is responsible for Jesus' death. We lose sight of the fact, that Jesus died for our sins. He died to save us all and bring everlasting life. The Jews and Pilate, may as well have been pawns in a chess game. They are not to blame to per se, they were just part of what made the events come in to play. We need to respect that others have different beliefs but that does not mean we should become angered at someone else's beliefs.


09/23/2003 11:27:53 AM

But, what if they were?


09/23/2003 11:07:51 AM

I'm reading a fascinating book called "The Jesus Mysteries." Perhaps the events of the gospels were not meant to be taken literally.


09/23/2003 11:04:28 AM

(cont.) As to why Pilate gave in to the mob? Well, it was because he HAD abused his position, and he knew that if he did not give in to their demands and instead released Jesus, that there was a very good chance the Jewish leadership would petition for his removal and he would be recalled to Rome to face charges. Don't make this any harder than it is. A careful reading of the Gospel accounts makes all of this pretty clear.


09/23/2003 11:02:24 AM

(cont.) If you read the biblical account, the Jewish leaders accused Christ of sedition to Pilate. They wanted him executed. Under Roman law, only the Roman governor could issue capital punishment, so the Jewish leadership COULDN'T stone Jesus to death for blasphemy. If they tried, THEY would have been crucified for breaking Roman law. Therefore, they accused Jesus of sedition to Pilate. Read the account. Pilate's questioning of Jesus regards the charge of sedition (making himself a king). It was only AFTER capital punishment had been pronounced that the Jewish leaders declared the Christ was being put to death because he had dared declare himself God.


09/23/2003 11:02:07 AM

To Fromoz and sweetness, Crucifixion was NOT just for political offenses. Crucifixion was actually quite a common form of execution under Rome. It was used for muder, theft, a slave striking his master, etc. as well as for sedition and other political crimes. Crucifixion was not always to the death, or by nailing. Sometimes victims were tied to the cross for a period of time as a form of public humiliation (equivalent to the stockades in colonial America). Crucifixion usually occured in a highly visible location, such as along major roads or on hilltops to act as a deterrent to others who might consider breaking the law.


09/23/2003 10:58:34 AM

I am looking forward to seeing this movie. This is the eternal struggle of good against evil not necessarily Christian against Jews. The Jews today are not the Jews of 2000 years ago, just as we are not the same as the early Christians. What has remained the same is Christ's message. One of love and compassion. That is what we should feel toward our Jewish brothers and sisters. Lastly, someone asked me recently when I was "saved". It occurred to me to answer "2000 years ago when Christ died on the cross". My Lord is Jesus Christ. Pax


09/23/2003 10:42:08 AM

continued- last A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that... he hath done. ("he hath done" - "it is finshed{completed}") --thus sayth the Lord.... PSALM 22....written before the annointed Jesus was born...spoken the day of his death...an in a Loud voice "Roaring", even after scourging, (whereby most died at that) then beaten, carried a cross, and was nailed to it...and still had enough breath in him to "ROAR" ....that is my Lord...thank-you Jesus for my Life.


09/23/2003 10:41:03 AM

continued-pt4 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard. My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him. The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the Lord that seek him: your heart shall live forever. All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the Lord's: and he is the governor among the nations. All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.


09/23/2003 10:37:44 AM

continued- But be not far from me, O Lord: O my strength, haste thee to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. Save me from the loin's mouth; for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and him, all ye the seed of Israel.


09/23/2003 10:36:11 AM

continued- Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou have brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they peirced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.


09/23/2003 10:33:38 AM

I don't believe the Jesus legends in the Bible, but, whether or not they happened, it does seem that much (not all) of the Jewish community is unwilling to admit that they, as a people, have ever done anything wrong! Read the Old Testament! They slaughtered countless innocent people in order to take over the land that "God" allegedly gave to them. In fact, that "god" directed them to do this! It's there, it can't be ignored, can it? So Gibson believe the New Testament story that the Jews killed Jesus. So? Is Judaism above reproach? Above criticism? In the name of their religion, they now oppress the Palestinians. Likewise, many (not all) Muslims, in the name of "Allah" committ atrocities, and Christianity is certainly not blameless throughout history! None of these so-called Abrahamic traditions are free of spilling blood to this very day. Gibson is just saying what he believes.


09/23/2003 10:28:08 AM

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my ROARING? O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent. But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel. Our fathers trusted in thee; they trusted, and thou didst deliver them. They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded. But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly. Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.


09/23/2003 10:19:49 AM

I think there is a major part of the crucifixion of Christ you all are missing here. In John 18:5-9 we see the power Jesus had in this world. He confirmed that he was Jesus of Nazareth and they drew back and fell to the ground. Jesus willingly went to the cross as a sacrifice to wash away the sin of humanity. No one put Him there, He went willingly. Who could claim to have the power to kill the one true God? And even though He suffered on the cross he did not die. He was resurrected from the grave. An empty tomb is evidence to that. That is the power of "the passion". They are not placing blame but showing God's mercy for His people. No man had the power to put Him there, He went willingly as a sacrifice to wash away the sins of humanity. That is the point. Not whether satan was man or woman, not whether the jewish leaders or the roman government put Him there, but that God went willingly to take a punishment that is rightfully ours so that we did not have to die for our sins.


09/23/2003 09:33:21 AM

fromoz wrote: I've read that according to historical records that crucifixion was a particularly nasty death reserved for the political enemies of Rome - that thieves were hanged. If this is the case why was Jesus crucified between two thieves? You're applying modern sensibilities of jurisprudential consistency to a time when such a thing is anachronistic. If the local procurator felt the desire to be extra cruel, it was well within his power to see to thieves any way he wished to. Such is quite likely the case with Pontius Pilate, a governor who was removed from Caesaria for his cruelty within ten years of taking over.


09/23/2003 09:04:15 AM

KELCHET WELL STATED. I know I will be seeing this one and if the story is accurate and not tainted by the Hollywood take for glorification and opertunism to make cash I will let my son see it also as I have been talking to him on this subject for two months now. As far as the femal bashing that is being percieved I think we need to keep in mind this is HOLLYWOOD not reality and any shocking twists they though in is just for the box office sales. Besides who nows if an angel is male or female and does it matter since Lucifer is pure evil and in my minds eye an Alpha male. Relax and enjoy life and remember we are not here to attack and accuse each other that is the Devils job our job is to hold each other up and suppress the Devils works.


09/23/2003 09:03:06 AM

Norm UK- The "custom" of releasing a prisoner on Passover is a blatant LIE. Ask any Jewish scholar. I'm not even Jewish and I know this. Its nothing more than propaganda, written after the fact, to perpetuate Jewish guilt over Christ's crucifixion. Everyone should know that the gospels were not written during Jesus' time. They were written much later, to give an opportunity to for the authors to write history as they saw fit. Its BS. And whats this about making Satan a woman??!! Sorry, I haven't read this article thoroughly yet, just saw the post. So, this film seeks to promote more propaganda. I, for one will not waste my money to even give it the benefit if the doubt. Brightest blessings to all-Rhiannon


09/23/2003 06:28:10 AM

from0z - when jesus said my God my God why have you forsaken me, it was when he took on every sin, curse for us, mere humans, God's creation. At that point in time he was separated from God because of the sin that God himself in human form took on, a careful reading of Holy scripture tells us that day went to darkness But I nor anyone else can convince you or give you revelation of scripture, only the holy spirit can, it is revealed to those who ask in humlity,


09/23/2003 02:16:41 AM

Why is there so much talk about a movie almost no one has actually seen? Could it be that as it is our sin He died for, we would rather not be reminded?


09/23/2003 01:46:34 AM

Ok...I have always liked Mel Gibson...but he's making Satan a Woman??? I'm much more offended by that than anything else!!! So if the Jewish population is offended by this movie, then I would at least expect every WOMAN to be offended. Jesus was not AGAINST women. We are not SATAN. Eve is a FICTIONAL character to blame all of the world's sins on. But from where I sit, it seems to me that MAN has made this place much worse than if WOMEN were in charge. And, no, I don't hate men. I very happily married to one, thank you. I am just sick and tired of "certain religions" using the female to beat up on. Peace and Love to ALL


09/23/2003 01:27:46 AM

continued I don't think much of his distinction between critical but non-skeptical interpretation of ancient literature. If you want to approach the truth, it's always best to be skeptical of any source that's got an axe to grind. To see the gospels rather as neutral history is apologetics. I say that the gospels are couched in religious division and political correctness, so their after-the-fact version of the passion should remain suspicious, regardless of the possible involvement of jewish leaders. Why, besides religious tradition, give any credence at all to the gospel slander of the pharisees? It helps perpetuate a distorted view of the jewish vision of the rabbi from nazareth. And,like the movie, it helps to incubate the anti-judaism of the gospels among christians. shalom jim


09/23/2003 01:26:56 AM

vbreedlove and others need to find some secular historical evidence of Jesus as do people who blindly believe in these gospels. I would like to know how a Roman like Pilate, who was to be recalled to Rome because of his brutal crowd control methods would give in to an unarmed mob over a man he could pin no crime on? Talk about reality, I'd also like to see where exactly the 'custom' of realeasing prisoners during Passover came from? And if Jesus was Jewish and claimed to be God, that would make God a Jew...something most Jews would be horrified at - and me too...who wants to worship a man who died and never came back? You need to look at how your new testament came into being and question it seriously - after all, it's your eternal life at stake.


09/23/2003 01:26:53 AM

Sweetness right on! deAssissi based on the texts, which are pauline in influence, I'd say that regardless of whether they are before or after the wars, they reflect the alienation between jerusalem and gentile followers of jesus reflected already there in the letters. Although paul warns against anti-judaism, the "judaizers" are already in some disagreement with him. The gentile christians actually included hellenized jews like paul. matthew could have been one such. He on the other hand has harsh words for the pharisaic jews. This distance is what allows the evangelists to curry roman favor by making jews the patsy for jesus' death. Bock says it's history. Of course he would. It's the christian version of a history we don't have any other version for. He's a christian who teaches christians to sustain the christian traditions. That's why he was chosen to see the film first. shalom jim


09/23/2003 12:59:24 AM

rbethell, Let me offer another explanation for the "Eli, Eli, Lema Sabacthani"... In that moment, Christ was "sinful" or more accurately "sin-full"; that is, he is in the process of assuming on that cross the sins of the whole world - including all those we commit today. Those words, I've concluded (after having said them a few times at various points in my life, and more recently than I really wanna admit) reflect a fully SINFUL state... if sin is acts, words, and mostly thoughts that distance us from God, what could be more sinful - more God-distancing - than a belief that He's abandoned you? In those moments, we forget who He is.. and forget who we are, too - just as Christ did. But, as I've found.. we made need that to get to our "it is finished" (or should that be "it is perfect"?)


09/23/2003 12:47:43 AM

How many people has the Religeon in power killed people who teach and hold differing beliefs from their own? One? Twenty? A thousand? Millions? Where is there a clear understanding that the Christ or even his Father comes out and says Kill the unbelievers? No where yet the argument rages on that we must do so by devine authority? I say put any one who tries to connect love with killing into an insane asylum because the God of the 12 tribes is not a God of retribution. Neither he nor his Son teach us to hate, only men who seek to cover their own sin, seek to justify this anti-God behavior by establishing standards of fear. Tilly


09/22/2003 11:42:02 PM

I've read that according to historical records that crucifixion was a particularly nasty death reserved for the political enemies of Rome - that thieves were hanged. If this is the case why was Jesus crucified between two thieves?


09/22/2003 11:37:05 PM

Satan is a woman now?


09/22/2003 11:35:55 PM

I Hate to say this to all the detractors and supporters of this film, but....JUST WAIT! Wait till the movie comes out and judge it then. Don't come to a hasty, "I can't believe how bad/good it's gonna be!" before you've even seen the movie! ARGH!


09/22/2003 11:31:16 PM

In reality, the Romans appear to have held the primary responsibility for Jesus' death. The main piece of evidence for this is that Jesus was crucified--a method of execution that Rome reserved for rebels and political subversives. If the Jewish leaders had really been concerned about "blasphemy," they could have had him stoned; although it's possible they colluded with the Romans in having Jesus put to death. Jesus was clearly a threat in some way to the political and religious order of his day; and the leaders dealt with him the same way they dealt with all such threats to their authority. Perhaps if Mel Gibson had been interested in making a truly "historical" movie account of Jesus' death, the account might reflect the social context and realities of Jesus' day. Until we see the film, of course, we can't judge. But the Gospel accounts are so familiar, and so important in the eyes of Christian faith, that perhaps it's almost unavoidable that Gibson wants to tell that story once more...


09/22/2003 11:24:38 PM

People often don't realize that the Gospels were written over 30 years after the death of Jesus. They weren't intended to be objectively "historical"; they were essentially propaganda for the Christian faith, as the author of John admits (John 20:31). In the context of the late 1st century when the Gospels were written, the Christian movement was under suspicion--when not being persecuted--by the Roman government. At the same time, early Christians were in an intense conflict with followers of "mainstream" Judaism, over issues such as the Messiah-ship of Jesus, and the inclusion of non-Jews into the Christian community. In this context, the Gospel authors appear to have tailored their account of Jesus' trial and death, to shift blame away from the Romans, and toward the Jewish leaders and "the Jews" in general. The inclusion of anti-Semitic passages in the Gospels (e.g., Matt. 27:25) had enormous and tragic consequences for the future dealings between Christians and Jews. (cont'd)


09/22/2003 10:58:23 PM

I don't know why anyone would blame either the Jews or the Romans for Jesus' crucifixion. He submitted to it voluntarily on our behalf, and knew it was going to happen, and was even given the opportunity to prevent it. He was (is) God after all. Seems to me, if you want to "blame" someone for the greatest gift ever given to mankind, namely pure grace, I guess ya gotta blame God. Bad God! Bad! Hahahahahahaha! Thank you, Jesus.


09/22/2003 10:21:55 PM

hey julrich, I agree with what you said, except one small comment: "They wrote during the time when the roman war on jerusalem and jews caused a scism between jews and followers of jesus." what you are stating here is an older dating of the Gospel Accounts. starting around the 70's there had been a revision of dating. this new dating places the four Gospels around 40-70 A.D. check it out if you have time: look for stuff by Fr. Jean Carmignac, for example. I'm sure there are other sources you can find on the internet. if this is true, then the Gospel Accounts are likely not exclusively composed by Gentile Christians. (which is what I'm assuming you are saying, though I can be understanding you.) Glory be to God, and peace be with you! Michael 9-22-2003


09/22/2003 09:22:49 PM

fromoz wrote: If Jesus gave His life - why is He so often troubled about His destiny? Because orthodox Christian doctrine affirms that Jesus is also fully man. Crucifixion is a hell of a way to go - can you really imagine that that aspect of Jesus that was man would feel no anxiety over this? As to why, "Eli, Eli, Lema Sabacthani?" He is quoting Psalm 22, which could be argued to be prophetic in the circumstance. You are reading the wrong things into it.


09/22/2003 09:22:12 PM

The devil is not in the passion as a character, but he enters judas in the gospel. jesus didn't step on the head of a snake in gethsemane. that's an allusion to Genesis, but it also recalls the woes against the pharisees as vipers and snakes. The reason he was suffering is because of a problem humanity had, but that doesn't exclude the problem he supposedly had with the jews. He also had that problem according to the gospel and according to the movie. This narrative was not written and the movie was not made to protray a disagreement among jews. The people who wrote the gospel were christians. They weren't jewish disciples of jesus. They wrote during the time when the roman war on jerusalem and jews caused a scism between jews and followers of jesus. shalom jim


09/22/2003 08:34:45 PM

truthspeak wrote - "If you read the new testiment correctly you will see that Jesus gave his life , they did not take it." Why then does Jesus on the cross cry out "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Probably the most quoted Bible verse is John 3:16. That verse tells us that God "gave" His "one and only Son". It also tells us that God and Jesus were two separate identities - as they are in the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If Jesus gave His life - why is He so often troubled about His destiny?


09/22/2003 08:17:59 PM

Everyone is making such a big deal about violence and antiSemitism. I have to say I'm not that concerned about those issues. Jesus was Jewish. His story is about his world and the people in it, good and bad, were--gasp!--Jewish. However I have to say I am SOOOOO tired of seeing Jesus played in movies by skinny sadsacks. And in my dictionary if you look up "sadsack" it says "See Jim Caviezel." Sigh.


09/22/2003 02:54:42 AM

If you read the new testiment correctly you will see that Jesus gave his life , they did not take it. If he would not have done so, he would not have followed the will of his Father. In so doing he fullfilled all rightiousness and became the savior of all mankind. Blame is not the watchword, because without his sacrifice he would have lived until his dodage and the world would never have remembered him. The watchword is not Blame, but ACCEPTANCE of him as our Lord and savior and he who enters the gate and endurs unto the end, performing the will of the Father as Jesus did, will come unto the Father in Celestial Glory.


09/22/2003 12:55:06 AM

It's really very simple --- being "politically correct" and being "correct" are rarely the same thing! God's word is "sharper than any two-edged sword". By it's very nature it divides believers and unbelievers. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me." There you go, folks. If you want to be saved, you MUST believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he lived, died a horrible death, and was raised on the 3rd day after his execution to eternally sit at the right hand of God. Sorry PCers, but there is no way to be saved as a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, etc. I say this in hope for all men and in love, not in hate, "for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not die, but shall have everlasting life!" Embrace this, people, and claim the greatest gift of all, which is entirely free to us, because it was paid for by Jesus in his own precious blood on the cross. Believe and rejoice!


09/21/2003 04:45:08 PM

Leon, Who are these "most scholars"? ALL the ones who use the Greek gospels to produce the 150+ English translations we have? and they ALL mistranslated some (not quoted but stated neutral) Greek word about which they are all wrong - numerous times (Mt 10:4, Mt 26:14 {the word not used}, Mt 26:25, Mt 26:47, Mt 27:3, Mr 3:19, Mr 14:10, Mr 14:3 {again, demontstration not statement of the betrayal}, Lu6:16 {calls him a traitor} Lu 22:3 {Satan entered Him}, Jn 6:71, Jn 12:4, Jn 13:2, Jn 13:18-30) - and what should the word be? Judas betrayed Him to the leaders, who were complicit in His death by requesting He be brought b4 Pilate. "The Jews" didn't kill Jesus - that's absurd, like blaming all Italians for the Mafia - but those who were responsible were Jewish. To use the word "blame" is entirely wrong, as it all happened EXACTLY as it had to. You wanna rewrite history, you need to be more specific with your evidence.


09/21/2003 01:09:15 PM

It is amazing that anyone could argue that Gibson's film is both faithful to the Gospels and a dramatic re-creation. Clearly, Gibson's devil inspiring conflict between Jews and Romans is not in the Gospels. And his film will fail to be faithful in other ways, the same ways that the traditional story fails to be faithful. E.g., the Greek Gospels do not say that Judas betrayed Jesus. As most scholars now admit, it is a mistranslation of a neutral word, having no connotation of betrayal. Only William Klassen has had the courage to fight for a correction to Judas' reputation in his book "Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus?" (1996). The whole idea of blaming Jewish leaders for Jesus' death is not as supported by the Gospels as people think. Repeating this calumny -- against Jews and against the Gospel writers -- a million times over does not make it true.