Greek was not used in the movie for dialogue. They did use a lot of Aramaic, which had served as a common tongue in that region before the Roman conquest.
The Passion of the Christ
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Jakob Covenant |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 462 (02/26/04 08:33:47) Honorary Ninja |
|
||
|
Elijah the Warrior |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 1126 (02/26/04 12:24:47) The Anti-Wuss |
Quote: 1. Explain to me the difference. 2. I stand by the fact that I believe everyone who fails to believe the definition I stated above is NOT a Christian, whether they believe themselves to be or not. If you don't believe that the acceptance Christ's life and death is the only way to heaven, frankly you're not a Christian. I'd be very interested to know what other definitions exist for "Christians" other than the one I posted. It is almost verbatim from Websters, too... I got my definition from the Bible and from Websters Dictionary. I would be curious where theirs came from. I'm just expressing my personal beliefs. Never once have I, in my entire life that I'm aware of, told someone else that they *should* believe the same. I believe it to be a personal choice based on faith (or lack thereof)... I'll be viewing the movie in a few hours, I'm looking forward to it. Elijah, RKB
|
||
|
Lord Phoenix |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 792 (02/26/04 12:44:00) Almost Cool |
America is a very very big place, consisting of no less than 25 countries over the northern and southern American continents. Anyone who lives on these continents or was born there is an American. The United States takes up a small portion of these continents, though it does happen to be the most prosperous of all of the American countries. While most of us in the USA refer to our country and our country alone as America, most other countries in the world call us the States. American is the proper term for a citizen of the US, primarily because of the fact that Unitedians or Statesers doesn't sound very well.
 |
||
|
Klaitu |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 1143 (02/26/04 12:47:16) King of the Nerds |
Well, the film is obviously made from Gibson's viewpoint of Christianity, since it is his film.
-- Klaitu
|
||
|
Alaric Torquil |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 319 (02/26/04 12:52:57) Funky Cold-Medina |
Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus:
Chris*tian /Krischen/ adj. 1 of Christ's teachings or religion. 2 believing in or following the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. 3 showing the qualities associated with Christ's teachings. 4 coloq. (of a person) kind; fair; decent. *n. adherent of Christianity. Chris*ti*an*i*ty /krischeeanitee/ n. 1 Christian religion. 2 being a Christian. 3 = CHRISTENDOM. Seems pretty clear to me that this dictionary narrowly focuses the idea of being a Christian to being of Christ's teachings or [his] religion, believing [faith] in the religion taught by Jesus and showing the qualities associated with Christ's teachings (ex: kind; fair; decent). It does not appear in this definition that any of the four may exclude the others but all must be present. What order they take is unclear. It appears to me that Jesus is also teaching a message about power and control and in these teachings he removes power and control for salvation from human beings and places it squarely on his soldiers. I suspect that this all or nothing definition is exactly what causes people to argue and pull away from Jesus' [entire] message. By [entire] I refer not only to the feel good stuff like "Do unto others" but also his messages about he being [G]od, the promised Messiah, eternal judge, creator, etc.. And this is a message not withstanding the rest of the gospel and letter accounts about Jesus and expositions on his teachings by such people as Paul, Peter, James, John, etc.. This is a definition of absolutes and people do not generally like the idea that there are absolutes surrounding eternity, heaven, hell, salvation, truth, justice, goodness, evil etc... Now, off the topic of definition for now, I stayed up until 1 AM watching the news and news talk show on the movie and saw over time an interesting transition. The topic shifted, if anyone happened to watch this, from the anti-semitism people feared in the movie to how violent the movie is. Did anyone see this? Why the transition? Was it because most of the hard core tripping issue viewers had gone to bed or because almost all the exit interviews by people having seen the film said there was no obvious anti-semitism in the film? Maybe because they exhausted the anti-semitism and moved onto the other issues with the film? Thoughts???? |
||
|
Elijah the Warrior |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 1126 (02/26/04 13:39:17) The Anti-Wuss |
*APPLAUDS LOUDLY*
Alaric, you did a better job in a single post than I did in a whole thread. You also derailed your own thread onto another topic (or did you rerail it back to the original topic? Sneaky indeed...). If the account of the death of Christ is accurate to the Bible (which I understand that it is), anti-semitism is a non-issue. It is clearly defined who participated in the event and why Christ was killed. It's sort of like asking who's responsible for the death of a convict on death row in today's world. Is the jury responsible? Is the judge? How about the guy who flips the switch on the electric chair? The convict himself? Why do they use alcohol swabs on someone to clean the area where they're going to administer a lethal injection, anyways? As for the violence, it's the next obvious target. The interesting part is that, from what I understand, the movie portrays this sort of death rather accurately. Not unlike the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan... Religion, specifically Christianity, makes a lot of people very uncomforatble. So many people live their lives in what they believe to be a "grey area." When someone or something like this movie comes along and forces them to deal with the issue in a potentially "black and white" way, feathers are ruffled. I'm enthusiastic about the dialogue, though... I'm talking about these things with people that I've never been able to talk with about these things before... and here on this forum is but a small sample of that. Elijah, RKB
|
||
|
Klaitu |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 1143 (02/26/04 13:43:05) King of the Nerds |
My thoughts:
Policing Christianity is not my job, nor do I want such a job. Because of this, I don't really care about different Christian viewpoints or any of that. All I am concerned with is my own viewpoints. As for the media and the anti-semetism thing.. I don't even know how that got started. The movie isn't anti-semetic, and anyone who is a rational human being knows that when they come out of the theatre. I didn't find the movie particularly violent, but I recall that when Saving Private Ryan came out, that people were calling that one pretty violent too, and I didnt think that either. The two are similar in amount of violence, while SPR deals with lots of different people being wounded, TPOTC deals with only one person being wounded. No doubt some will find it disturbing, but it's nowhere near as violent or gory as "Brain Dead" The makeup effects are meant to tell the story, and not to gross you out. -- Klaitu
|
||
|
Lord Phoenix |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 792 (02/26/04 13:49:49) Almost Cool |
Quote: Actually, its in the thought that the injectee may survive the procedure. Very small chance, oh so small, microscopic, tens of thousandths of a 1%. But its still there. And if they survive, they go free. |
||
|
Elijah the Warrior |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 1126 (02/26/04 13:51:58) The Anti-Wuss |
Policing Christianity isn't something I'm interested in, either. I believe that Christians are called to spread the truth (Great Commission) and thus when I have an opportunity to do so, I try to do it.
That often results in interesting discussions such as this one. |
||
|
Alaric Torquil |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 319 (02/26/04 14:35:24) Funky Cold-Medina |
Before I see the film I plan on reading the crucifixion accounts in the bible and doing further research on the Roman military practices of torture and the practice of crucifixion. The Romans were powerful for a reason not withstanding terrorizing people through torture and horrible capital punishment. They had a predisposition with inflicting pain and suffering (lions killing Christians in the first century A.D., Gladiatorial tournaments etc..) I suspect the movie provides a rather realistic portrayal of Jesus' fate in the flogging and crucifixion.
|
||
|
Jakob Covenant |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 462 (02/26/04 15:48:10) Honorary Ninja |
Quote: I do not think Alaric postulated that there is only one way to be a Christian and therefore only one way that a Christian could view Mel Gibson's movie. One Christian could come out of the theater believing the movie to be anti-semitic (and in this age bigotry is subtle and not overt) and overly violent. Another Christian may come out of the theater thinking the movie was simply good. And yet another Christian could come out of the movie thinking about a burger and a shake. Repeating myself from my original post - Some Christians do not object to a gay bishop, some Christians object to any gays whatsoever. So, unless anyone here is going to say that Episcopalians are not Christians, then it stands that there are divergent views on how to be a Christian. |
||
|
Elijah the Warrior |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 1126 (02/26/04 15:56:56) The Anti-Wuss |
I didn't postulate that there's only one way to be a Christian, either. I gave a defnition of the word. Once that definition is met, it's up to the individual as to how to live out the obligation that comes with it.
If an Episcopalian accepts my definition, I believe them to be a Christian. If they don't, I believe they are not. How they choose to live beyond that is between them and God. |
||
|
RaistlinBD |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 362 (02/26/04 16:04:06) Elitus Maximus |
I'm not a Christian myself, and in fact I am not really anything. I've studied many different religions because they all fascinate me, and I've had the opportunity to read the Bible on quite a few occassions, and having read it and having what I feel to be a good understanding of Christianity, I think Elijah is pretty much dead-on in his description of what is Christian.
I have always taken the New Testament to be a message that Christianity is faith in Christ and that Christ died for all the sins of men, past, present and future. I took from the message that Christianity promotes gathering together with other Christians and learning and discussing. I took from the message that the basic rule is this: treat others with respect, as you would want them to treat you... let them see the light within you, because you know with your faith comes salvation in death, and others who don't know God may see this light and begin to wonder what it is you have that they don't. Promote Christianity by being the very definition of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Jakob, I'm not sure I understand your argument. I think you are confusing a few things. I think the basic premise of faith in God is that your concept of His plans for humanity and the guidelines he sets for living, are between you and God. But the basic premise of Christanity as a whole is that as a Christian you believe God came to earth as the Christ, to die for your sins so that you would have a chance at redemption and ever-lasting life. As a Christian, how could a person refute that as the fundamental idea of Christianity? How could a person who has no bias, such as myself, see this and you not? People have so many different ideas and definitions about how they should worship in any religion. You see splinters of Christianity everywhere... Catholics, Lutherans, Seventh Day Baptists, Baptists, Methodists, etc etc etc... And these are all systems of worship, but they do not change the basic idea behind the religion. It's simple. If you are a Christian you believe in God, you believe that God sent his son to die for you, and you believe that one day, because of that sacrifice, you will have the chance to go to heaven. If that's not what you believe then you fall outside the religion of Christianity. - Raist |
||
|
Jakob Covenant |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 462 (02/26/04 16:51:06) Honorary Ninja |
Raist:
I think you missed my point. Early in the thread Elijah stated that one should go to a link he provided to get THE Christian point of view on the film. Phoenix and I commented that there were likely more than one Christian perspective regarding the film, that is all. My argument with Elijah is not on the definition of Christian. My point is that Christians, fitting either Elijah's definition or Merrian Webster's, have different perspectives. |
||
|
RaistlinBD |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 362 (02/26/04 16:57:01) Elitus Maximus |
Well now I feel silly.
Sorry Jakob, it's been a long day, and it's getting even longer. -Raist |
||
|
Alaric Torquil |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 319 (02/26/04 19:48:34) Funky Cold-Medina |
Raistlin and Jakob--in a well written statement you have helped further the discussion and debate concerning Doctrine, Theology and Interpretation (specifically relating to the website provided by Elijah given for reference). But, I also have to contend that the website Elijah provided has a lot of information that supports the classic definition of Christian. It is not a leap to say that this website may bring a Christian perspective to the Gibson movie.
But...on to doctrine, theology and interpretation....this is the bread and butter of thoughts I am having tonight... Christian's by the definition of their belief cannot ignore the doctrine of Christ as the Messiah, Lord and only path to salvation and heaven. Christ claimed to be the only way, so he either is what he said or everything about Christianity is called into question if he is not. It also seems fair to say that the focus for Christians must be on Jesus whether we are talking about issues of salvation or issues of social christianity. If for no other reason than the fact that they claim Jesus is who he claims to be. Jesus would by definition, be the rubric for all moral and ethical decision, because he claimed to be without sin. Therefore he would be the only person able to speak on social issues with any legitimate authority. And Jakob posts, and rightly so, about theology and interpretation concerning social Christianity with things like gay marriage, abortion rights, capital punishment &C. These are issues that divide a number of Christians and churches and not just the political polarities. Are these social issues more than simply debates on theological interpretation among Christians? Are christians, if centered on the nature of the Jesus christians worship, actually issues of Doctrine? Since gay marriage is really a tripping issue right now with our President ready to sign a Constitutional Amendment saying marriage is between a man and a woman only....I wonder....if Jesus is God and God destroyed Sodom and Gammorah then how should Christians respond to gay marriage? A response seems to me to be a responsibility. But, I suppose I trap myself a bit in the debate because one can easily say "the HOW you ask, Alaric, is in fact another interpretation. What are you saying, Christians should go around killing gays?" [G]od no! I'm not saying that. I want to throw something else out here for people to comment on that is in fact related to the trap I just mentioned. Are *real* Christians, meaning those who confess Christ as their Lord and Savior and understand his perfect nature the hypocrits we "worry about" (gay bashers, abortion doctor killers etc...)? Or, are we really worried about the people who think and claim to be Christians and really are not if we base this on the fact that they obviously do not prescribe to the teachings of Jesus? Someone mentioned the KKK and I think it is a fair question to ask as an example, "Are members of the KKK real Christians?" It appears to me the answer would have to be "no". It seems I've derided this thread again, but to pull it back to the movie I have to ask, what should a Christian do with this movie and what is a non-Christian (even one claiming to be a Christian but not following any of the tenants of Jesus) going to do with this movie? I ask this especially in the context of the unruly climate of a very very very polar America *cough* among the most outspoken on both political sides *cough*. I guess the best thing to do is to start by answering my own question. I was already going to watch this movie. And in so doing really address my beliefs about Jesus and the life I live. Because it seems to me everything comes down to him. |
||
|
Jakob Covenant |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 462 (02/26/04 20:27:57) Honorary Ninja |
I believe that the bottom line is that a Christian's relationship with Jesus is ultimately a personal one. And a devout Christian would hopefully take measures to discover what God's will is for themselves through study, meditation, prayer, and act in accordance to God's will.
Likewise, I think that each person that has the interest, should see the movie for themselves, meditate on it, and make up their own mind on the movie. |
||
|
Elijah the Warrior |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 1126 (02/26/04 22:11:40) The Anti-Wuss |
First, a point of clarification. Jakob, if you differ with me based on my earlier reference to a website that comes from THE Christian perspective, you need to re-read my post. I said it was based on A Christian perspective. I might be nearsighted and naive, but certainly I wouldn't assume that one person's (or group's) perspectives are the ONLY perspectives.
I viewed the movie this evening... it was difficult to watch. I'd go as far as to say it was painful at times. I would guess that a non-Christian would say similar things. I'd say it was accurate to what I believe happened 2000 years ago... definitely close to what I've been taught through the years. Anti-semitic? *shrugs* It certainly didn't hint at any innocence of the Jewish leaders or a good number of Jewish citizens. It didn't go as far as to accuse them of anything, either... they let Pilate have that cross to bear (I know, bad pun). Violent? Yuppers... big time. Although the violence seemed realistic, the damage done to Christ's body was definitely sanitized. There was way to little blood during some of the scourging scenes... but any more blood and it would have been sickening. I believe it was done accurately enough to tell the story and make you feel it, not just watch it. There are enough places in the movie to "suck you in" and make you understand... if you're afraid that you won't relate to it, you probably will. If you're a parent, you'll relate. If you're a believer in Christ, you'll relate. For the first time in my movie watching career, I didn't feel like I was *watching* someone be violated - I felt like *I* was being violated. The last point I'll make before going to bed is this - it was rated "R" for a reason. If you're a parent and you're thinking of allowing your child to watch it, I'd reconsider. Of course every child is different but this movie was not at all intended for an immature audience. In addition, it moves fairly quickly and is completely subtitled. Unless you want to continually (trust me, you don't) want to be answering questions like, "who is that? why are they doing that? where are they going? where are they at?" you might want to watch it prior to deciding to take a child. Good stuff. This is an interesting diversion for these forums methinks... even if you don't agree with me :). |
||
|
Branwen the Bard |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 709 (03/07/04 21:57:59) Monkeypants |
An opinion page article from the Oklahoma Gazette, a local independent paper:
========================== The Gospel according to Mel By Robin Meyers, PH.D I have just returned from watching Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." It did not inspire me. It made me sick. Mel Gibson, former Hollywood bad boy turned fundamentalist Catholic, has turned his well-financed passion for personal religion (he built a multi-million dollar chapel near his home to worship at his leisure) into a savage film about the final hours of Jesus' life. In an almost masochistic departure from previous films about Jesus, there is almost nothing here about love or grace, healing or compassion. The message is the murder, and the desired effect is obvious: when fundamentalists say that Jesus died for our sins, this is what we mean! Gone is the teacher of wisdom, the prophet, the healer, and the lover of all humanity. Gone, in fact, are all traces of Jesus' humanity. With only a couple of flashbacks to the Sermon on the Moun, and the raising of Lazarus, the whole life and ministry of Jesus is reduced to this one unbearably graphic moment when a loving God, whom we are told must be appeased by the death of his own son in order to cancel out all the sins of the world, does nothing to stop what could thus rightly be called Cosmic Child Abuse. The problem with this film isn't that it is anti-Semitic. Rome killed Christ using Jewish proxies. Besides, we should be careful placing blame in the age of "enemy combatants" and "evil doers." If Jesus came back today, and turned our world upside down, Christians would kill him this time. This is something that the church is going to have to get straight if it is going to survive as a relevant, meaningful, and sane institution in our society. Jesus did not DIE for our sins. We KILLED him to put down a rebellion, just like we have always killed revolutionaries when they threaten our ways of thinking and living. The state-sponsored execution of Jesus of Nazareth tells us more about ourselves than it tells us about God. The notion of an angry God who must be bargained with (bought off) to protect us from divine wrath survives to this day in the series of billboard messages reputedly written by God, one of which warns us in the jargon of adolescence: DON'T MAKE ME COME DOWN THERE. Millions of evangelical Christians may be flocking to movie theaters, and taking their "pre-Christian friends" but they need to know that the Gospel According to Mel repulses some of us who are also followers of Jesus. Not because we are afraid to face the reality of violence (or our complicity in it), but because the idea of an angry God who demands the sacrifice of his own son, the "lamb of God" to balance some cosmic ledger and "purchase" the salvation of humanity, strikes many of us in the church as repugnant. This film, and its graphic representation with Jesus as the victim, rather than teacher and prophet, comes dangerously close to a kind of spiritual masochism. In a world already saturated with violence the message is clear and dangerous: some "righteous" violence is necessary in the world in order to accomplish the purpose of God. It's too bad really, some day. But after all, God planned it this way. Yet not only did the early church not emphasize the crucifixion and suffering of Jesus (executions were horrible, but commonplace in those days), but violence itself as a means to achieve the purposes of God was rejected. For Christians, the resurrection was the ultimate repudiation of Rome. It was God's final "No" to the ways of Caesar. As long as this convenient myth remains that the death of Jesus was foreordained, and that all we have to do is believe it in order to sign on to the Ultimate Bargain (which requires nothing from us), we will continue to ignore the message of Jesus, the life of Jesus, and the terrifying wisdom of Jesus in favor of the sacrifice of Jesus. Lest you doubt it, see the film. We grow more Roman every day. ============= Anyone care to do me the honors of debunking this? |
||
|
Alaric Torquil |
Re: The Passion of the Christ | ||
|
Posts: 319 (03/08/04 08:03:32) Funky Cold-Medina |
It goes to show that a Ph.D does not mean brilliance. S/He's wrong, and that is all I feel like saying about his/her article. IF this topic rebounds with additional commentary I will debunk everything s/he said with my prestated system...using scripture. From that point it is up to the reader to decide whether the arguements are valid.
I guess there is one thing s/he said that I will comment on. Quote: Mark 8:31, "He [Jesus] then began to teach them that the Son of Man [Jesus] must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again." Emphasis mine Robin Meyers, PH.D, obviously thinks s/he is a Christian, but is not if s/he thinks Jesus did not die for our sins. A fundamental requirement of salvation is to acknowledge what Christ did and why He did it. (John 3:16) Robin Meyers is picking and choosing his/her gospel and falling into the same arguement s/he has for "The Gospel According to Mel". |
||
