Mel Gibson's "Passion" - Antisemitism?
Adiudicator
'The Passion of the Christ'
The last twelve hours of Jesus Christ is masterfully
directed by one of the greatest filmmakers of modern
times, the much-admired and multitalented Mel Gibson.
This's the most realistic bible story ever committed
to film, and is certain to have a MAJOR influence on
every human who sees it. Everyone's talking about it.
There are plenty of film reviews out there and there
are soon to be thousands more, as millions of Gibson
fans fill theaters over the next several months, and
probably for many years to come by the time everyone
in the world has seen the film, given that subtitles
are readily translated into any language, especially
using the Gospel accounts for a convenient reference
since the Bible's already been translated into every
language and dialect on the planet. So it is certain
that most people in the world will, eventually, want
to see it, if for none other reason than to find out
what all the hubbub's about! So, is this film biased
against Jews? If you are not Jewish, it is difficult
to personally relate to Jewish history since the cru-
cifixion occurred. Think about what Jews have endured...
The bible makes it clear that Jesus agreed to be the
sacrificial lamb of God. And the bible also makes it
clear that Jesus' crucifixion caused the daily sacri-
fice to cease. Nearly forty years later by July 17th
70 AD, the daily sacrifice indeed had ceased, and 24
days later, on August 10th 70 AD, the temple was set
ablaze by an overzealous Roman soldier. Within hours,
the temple was destroyed. By Saturday, September 8th
of that year the city was utterly destroyed and lade
waste, literally, razed flat. It'd be almost two mil-
lennia before the Jews would recapture Israel. So in
the meantime the Jewish people were scattered abroad,
a process which had begun centuries earlier with the
Babylonian exile, from where the prophets Daniel and
Ezekiel foretold the devastating fate of Jews, which
won't be complete until 2331 AD: 2300 years from the
crucifixion in 31 AD. Long before the WWII holocaust
under NAZI tyranny, Jews had already been persecuted
so many times in so many nations that we've probably
lost count in the history books. Nearly two thousand
years of rabid and widespread antisemitism made Jews
one tough customer by the time the twentieth century
came along. Nowadays, the Israelis probably have the
best military and intelligence agencies in the world.
We know that Israel is armed to the teeth with nukes.
I pity the fool who tries to start a war with Israel,
because she has a Samson complex these days, meaning
anyone who tries to take her down will be met with a
wholesale nuclear holocaust and get sent back to the
stone age! Of course, Israel and probably the entire
middle east would go down with Israel's enemies, and
likely a hundred million (or so) innocent bystanders
would become unfortunate "collateral damage" thereby.
With so much rogue nuclear technology floating about
second & third-world nations, many whom are fanatics
and want to kill all Jews in the world like the NAZI
"final solution" policy of genocide penned in Arabic,
these militant Muslim Jew-haters realize that Israel
doesn't want to blow up the middle east, so Israelis
are willing to take a few "hits" here and there with-
out responding with large-scale nuclear retaliations,
but by controlled and deliberate military incursions.
The delicate "balancing act" is far more fragile and
volatile than most people realize. Even now the Jews
are facing enemies on every side. Hitler's long gone,
but militant genocidal Jew-haters are alive and well.
The United States is what's forestalling global ther-
monuclear holocaust...but how long she can hold back
the flood-gates is anybody's guess. Rogue terrorists
are close to having or already have nukes--according
to recent news from Pakistan. We know they're not af-
raid to commit suicide and mass homicide "for allah".
If and when they play their hand, well, duck & cover!
Cities like Damascus will become like a sea of glass.
Visit the Trinity site in NM if you don't understand.
So now that you have an idea of what it's like to be
Jewish in a world of fanatical Jew-haters: look what
Jesus suffered for all mankind, and that he did this
by election through the infinite power of God's love.
Jesus, who was born a Jew by his mother and born God
by his father, at the moment he died and gave up the
spirit, from that moment in time the destiny of Jews
AND Gentiles was sealed: The door had been opened to
the holy of holies. From that time forward, both Jew
and Gentile could enter the inner sanctuary by their
own election with their sins covered by the blood of
Christ-crucified. Within forty years Jerusalem would
be completely destroyed though Titus "spared the wes-
tern wall, and the three towers, Hippicon, Phasaelus
and Mariamme for their great beauty and strength..."
[Bishop Ussher's 'Annals' 4073bAM, 4783JP,70AD#6978].
Jerusalem, the second temple and the daily sacrifice
had utterly ceased to exist before the autumnal equi-
nox of 70 AD--all thanks to the crucifixion of Jesus!
Many of the early Xians were also Jews, but the rift
between old testament (TaNaKh) Jew and new testament
Jew & Gentile had already begun. Saul of Tarsus rode
down both paths. By about 100 AD, the canon of Judeo-
Xian scriptures was copied and distributed among the
local assemblies of proconsular Asia minor. Thus was
Judeo-Xianity born, emphasizing that the Gentile had
become equal to the Jew by their belief in Jesus and
what his life, death & resurrection had accomplished
for all mankind. Frankly, this really pissed off the
orthodox Jews who, if only on some unconscious level,
realized that Jesus' crucifixion had wrought the des-
truction of Jerusalem, the second temple, and caused
the daily sacrifice to cease for ever, albeit animal
sacrifice continues to this day. With the second tem-
ple gone, and the third temple--the one made without
hands--being the living body of Christ, the orthodox
rabbis had no temple worthy of their daily sacrifice,
for the ultimate sacrifice (of God in the flesh) had
been made once and for all. This is why so many Jews,
from the first century onward, have harbored and nur-
tured an almost "genetic" aversion for Judeo-Xianity.
To add insult to injury, the orthodox Xians tried to
"convert" orthodox Jews to Xianity, by preaching and
intimidation, imprisonment, torture, and finally mur-
der. And as centuries passed, the abject failures of
using brute force to "change" orthodox Jews to Xians
were forgotten, and similar cycles of oppression and
violence were repeated over and over--and over again.
By the time Martin Luther came along, the oppression
and torture of orthodox Jews was becoming a field of
"science" in fanatical Xian circles. Hitler was born
to put an end to the Xian oppression of Jews: by the
sheer breadth and magnitude of undiluted EVIL he had
unleashed on the world, with the Jews paying the hef-
tiest price for Hitler's unbridled sadistic insanity.
With American friends in the UN, Israel was born and
Jews flocked in multitudes to the promised land that
had been long lost to the "valley of dry bones" just
as Ezekiel had prophesied 2500 years before while in
Babylon. Since the rebirth of Israel after WWII, our
relationship between the Jews and Xians has improved
immensely. Is it because Hitler was so horribly ugly
and cruel to Jews, that Xians had finally had enough
with the forces of evil? Maybe so. That's not a very
good reflection on Xians, that it took a despot like
Hitler--and the lives of millions of Jews--to send a
wakeup call to Xians who'd been "asleep at the wheel"
for nearly two thousand years. Of course, most Xians
were not so bad, not individually. But as a group it
is undeniable that Xians have been the oppressors of
Jews until the NAZIs hit us all over the head with a
six-hundred million pound baseball bat (for Christ's
sake, that's the gawddamn awful truth of the matter).
____________________________________________________
So, what have we Jews & Gentiles learned after these
nearly two thousand years of war and oppression? The
lesson is this: Christ awakened the light within all
mankind, and the purpose for which the light is used
can be for good -AND- evil, by both Jew & Gentile as
our history so loudly, so sanguinely, so wickedly at-
tests. We believe that good outweighs evil...if only
barely or just enough to tip the scales in our favor.
You see, the fractional modicum of good in our favor
is not ours, but is the light of Jesus Christ within
us which has been awakened. The more that the scales
of life favor the good, then the more that Christ is
being glorified. The more good you do, then the more
he is glorified above the angels of heaven. But, the
more evil that you do, then the more that Satan gets
the credit. And whatever credit you give Satan, that
is glory you are BORROWING from Jesus Christ, by the
very grace of God you're descending into evil not by
God's will but by your own, God-given will, which he
gave you to use as you will. Gibson's "Passion" will
remind you, be you Jew or Gentile (or both like Min),
of your personal complicity in his suffering for you
personally. That's what this is about. It's PERSONAL!
I've been an orthodox Jew, a rabbi. I know the shame
of rejecting Christ in retrospect. It's difficult to
explain just what that feeling is. I know that Judas
Iscariot must've felt about the same way when he had
hanged himself. Who knows, I might've been incarnate
as Judas the Betrayer in a past life? I've certainly
felt that level of shame in rejecting Christ. I pray
that you the reader never find this out the hard way.
It is a pain beyond the lamentations of Jeremiah 9:4.
See the movie. It's a work of art. If you love Jesus,
then you'll bawl your eyes out. If you don't, you'll
be intimidated, shocked, & stabbed through the heart!
You'll discover that part of you does love Jesus, no
matter what your race, creed or color. And you might
realize that whatever parts of you do not love Jesus,
those parts of you are transmitting signals of shame
and contempt--the last thoughts of Judas as he swung
into oblivion. Don't run from it. Face it. Admit you
are not fully committed to God. If you pay attention
to your feelings of SHAME these are like your nerves
sending signals that something's amiss, in "dis-ease"
as it were. God gave you the power to reduce or even
eliminate this pain by turning this energy into some-
thing positive. You'll never realize what Jesus died
for until you allow him to operate in those parts of
you that are not committed to the power of good. Let
patience allow time for your (self-inflicted) wounds
to heal. Become one with Jesus and know he is in you.
Know that the word of God is true. Read it sometimes...
Most Humbly Yours,
Daniel Joseph Min
*Min's Concise Commentary on the Apocalypse Chapter 1:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=72R8L7KE3801...@Gilgamesh-Frog.org
*Min's Concise Commentary on the Apocalypse Chapter 2:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=C81HWW2F3802...@Gilgamesh-Frog.org
*Min's Concise Commentary on the Apocalypse Chapter 3:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=KRAXAOOW3803...@Gilgamesh-Frog.org
*Min's Interlinear Translation of the Apocalypse:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=N8G8XLYW3798...@Gilgamesh-Frog.org
*Min's $10,000,000 Reward For Astronomers:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ZZ5B1I203785...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
*Min's Newsgroup-Archived Home Page On The World Wide Web:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5YTK57VH3794...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQD2h1pljD7YrHM/nEQL4LwCfYSB1DZxw/1YwHgsF8Df6jUTGrb0AoOMf
J7VOHphbmQRzq5nwwvGHdHsl
=xu7J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you consider the content of this post to be particularly offensive, disgusting or plain illegal,
it is probably 'designer abuse', a message designed specifically to hurt the remailer's reputation/existence.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6THHPRAL38002.4374074074%40anonymous&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
Some people hate this remailer so badly that, for example, they did not hesitate to celebrate the death of 148 French tourists in a plane crash.
Those people seceded from the human race, so don't hesitate to report them directly to the police.
2004/01/03 (contact <ab...@cotse.com>) Blue.Jay celebrates
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Ymx1ZWpheQ%3D%3D.19d787f018eb3019d6fd3faa2125547c%401073158846.cotse.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
2004/01/19 <ra...@thetis.deor.org> Len Sassaman chooses that moment to bring his support to Blue.Jay
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.58.0401181826110.31463%40thetis.deor.org&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
More about the subject will be available http://frogadmin.yi.org/HOS/
Dan
"Adiudicator" <Adiudic...@God.Bless.America> wrote in
message news:ACMZ8TL73804...@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
John F Lemke
"Dan" <twotri...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:xW0%b.617088$ts4.196835@pd7tw3no...
> Oh just shut the fuck up already!
Uhoh, Dan, now your in Mr. Min's kill file. That's why he doesn't ever see
anyone else's opinion more than once. He doesn't like people who take that
tone with him.
Dan
" John F Lemke" <jfl...@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:YaKdnd-2LdQ...@locallink.net...
Tilly
Youhave OE, so to killfile someone do the following:
Go to the toolbar and click on Messages.
Look down the list and click on 'block sender'. This will effectivly block
his posts to the news group.You will probably have to do it for each ng he
posts to.
You can also use rules to effectively limit people as well -you define the
rules as you wish..
Click on Tools on the toolbar and click Message rules.It will take you
there. It is very easy to use.
Hope this helps.
Tilly
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.594 / Virus Database: 377 - Release Date: 24/02/04
Dan
Technology confuses me.
"Tilly" <Brig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TA1%b.1882$SZ.6...@news.xtra.co.nz...
John F Lemke
> What's a 'kill file', and how do I activate it? Regards.
Hahaha! Ok, it looks like Tilly took care of this for you.
If you keep Danny's name out of your kill file you may see how many people
inhabit his. Every now and then he'll post the names of the people in his
killfile. Takes up a stupendous amount of bandwidth.
Never anonymous Butt
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 'The Passion of the Christ'
>
> The last twelve hours of Jesus Christ is masterfully
> directed by one of the greatest filmmakers of modern
> times, the much-admired and multitalented Mel Gibson.
> This's the most realistic bible story ever committed
> to film, and is certain to have a MAJOR influence on
> every human who sees it. Everyone's talking about it.
But it still doesn't address the charge and evidence proving
Jesus never existed. People love to believe a lie as long
as it makes them feel good. Really sad state of the world.
Mary Hogan
"Adiudicator" <Adiudic...@God.Bless.America> wrote in message
news:ACMZ8TL73804...@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Susan Cohen
"Adiudicator" <Adiudic...@God.Bless.America>
[snip crap]
Stay killfiled, jerk.
Susan
Susan Cohen
"Mary Hogan" <ho...@zoominternet.net> wrote in message
news:403cf...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Yes, and yes!!!
> "Adiudicator" <Adiudic...@God.Bless.America> wrote in message
No, & keep this crap off scj.
Susan
pk
"Never anonymous Butt" <new...@earthlink.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:403CFA...@earthlink.net...
Jan Pompe
pk wrote:
> you mean you have evidence of his "non-existence"?
>
You have proof of his existence it would be more surprising if you did.
pk
empirical?
"Jan Pompe" <janp@!dx.com.au> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4c6f4093c41398ac...@news.teranews.com...
Shmuel Playfair
[Jan P]
> > You have proof of his existence it would be more surprising if you did.
[pk]
> matter of time (months, not years) and we all see who were right.
> enough empirical?
[Shmuel] What will happen in a matter of months (not years)?
Jan Pompe
pk wrote:
> matter of time (months, not years) and we all see who were right. enough
> empirical?
Another prophet!
Have you made contingency plans for treatment if wrong?
How long before you decide that you are quite mad anmd will present
yourself to an acute Psychiatric unit?
You should plan now otherwise you might hold out too long.
Libertarius
the NEW TESTAMENT is an anti-Jewish propaganda document.
E.g. Read Saul/Paul, lover of the Romans, self-proclaimed "apostle" and liar,
and founder of Christianity:
1 Thessalonians 2:14-15
.".. the Jews:
Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted
us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men"
Acts 22:27-28
The commanding officer came and asked him,
"Tell me, are you a Roman?" He said, "Yes."
The commanding officer answered,
"I bought my citizenship for a great price."
Paul said, "But I was born a Roman."
"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory;
why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" Romans 3:7
The "Passion" reflects the Pauline view!
How much more "antisemitic" can you get??? -- L.
the cockroach
news:403D6C9F.4B6430C7@Nothing_But_The.Truth:
a local rabbi invited to the screenings said it was not nearly as anti
semtic as he had feared. actually the most antisemitic scenes were deleted.
although most of the reviews i have seen from the special shows to church
groups were very positive --- in that people were reacting positively to
jesus message and the movie --- the few people i spoke with at work who saw
an early show were more repulsed by how gory the movie was.
--
_______________________
WWMD
What Would a Mensch Do
_______________________
Jan Pompe
Libertarius wrote:
> ===>As a Gentile I have concluded long ago,
> the NEW TESTAMENT is an anti-Jewish propaganda document.
>
> E.g. Read Saul/Paul, lover of the Romans, self-proclaimed "apostle" and liar,
Excuse me that should read 'apostate' then you don't need the quotes.:)
Susan Cohen
"the cockroach" <mr...@zog.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns949ADEC504...@204.127.199.17...
> Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
> news:403D6C9F.4B6430C7@Nothing_But_The.Truth:
>
> > ===>As a Gentile I have concluded long ago,
> > the NEW TESTAMENT is an anti-Jewish propaganda document.
> >
> > E.g. Read Saul/Paul, lover of the Romans, self-proclaimed "apostle"
> > and liar,
> >
> > and founder of Christianity:
> >
> > 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15
> > .".. the Jews:
> > Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have
> > persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men"
> >
> > Acts 22:27-28
> > The commanding officer came and asked him,
> > "Tell me, are you a Roman?" He said, "Yes."
> > The commanding officer answered,
> > "I bought my citizenship for a great price."
> > Paul said, "But I was born a Roman."
> >
> > "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his
> > glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" Romans 3:7
> >
> > The "Passion" reflects the Pauline view!
> >
> > How much more "antisemitic" can you get??? -- L.
The part where they have the Jews themselves saying, in a completely
un-Jewish fashion, that not only are they guilty of killing him, but that
the blood-guilt is *inherited* - it's definitely fiction.
> >
>
> a local rabbi invited to the screenings said it was not nearly as anti
> semtic as he had feared. actually the most antisemitic scenes were
deleted.
No, they were not.
One of them was just not subtitled.
What was this rabbi's name?
>
> although most of the reviews i have seen from the special shows to church
> groups were very positive
Of course they were.
Most of the mainstream ciritcs, however, have been lukewarm to disgusted.
Susan
Jan Pompe
Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> Most of the mainstream ciritcs, however, have been lukewarm to disgusted.
>
Should be a big hit then.
I have just heard on the wireless that one woman died from a heart
attack during the crucefiction scene.
Maybe tickets should carry a health warning.
Stephen Bayzik
news:403D6C9F.4B6430C7@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
And please let us not forget the following. :-)
Matthew 27: 24-25
"Pilate sent for water and washed his hands in full sight of the multitude,
saying as he did so, I have no part in the death of this innocent man; it
concerns you only. And the whole multitude answered, His blood be upon us
and upon our children."
English translation of the Vulgate
Take care my thoughtful friend,
--
Stephen Bayzik
Tilly
> a local rabbi invited to the screenings said it was not nearly as anti
> semtic as he had feared. actually the most antisemitic scenes were
> deleted.
>
> although most of the reviews i have seen from the special shows to
> church groups were very positive --- in that people were reacting
> positively to jesus message and the movie --- the few people i spoke
> with at work who saw an early show were more repulsed by how gory the
> movie was.
On Fox News (it was early this morning NZ time) they interviewed a RC Bishop
or Cardinal ,who said he was dismayed by the movie .In his view the film
concentrated on Jesus's suffering and sacrifice ,as well as Gibson's 'warped
view' of the role the Jews had in his death.He also said that the gore and
suffering was outlandish and Pilate came across as a manipulated 'nice
guy'.In his view the only thing that was good about it ,was that it might
make some lapsed Christians interested in reading the NT again.
I was actually surprised that a Catholic theologist would say this!
Tilly
rmey...@charter.net
>the crucefiction scene.
Is this spelling intentional?
Bob
Christ Died to Save You
the cockroach
news:ABf%b.15213$Mo4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com:
> "Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
> news:403D6C9F.4B6430C7@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
>
[snipped]
>
> And please let us not forget the following. :-)
>
> Matthew 27: 24-25
>
> "Pilate sent for water and washed his hands in full sight of the
> multitude, saying as he did so, I have no part in the death of this
> innocent man; it concerns you only. And the whole multitude answered,
> His blood be upon us and upon our children."
> English translation of the Vulgate
>
> Take care my thoughtful friend,
since it is the blood of jesus that atones for sin what that means is that
the jews will always be saved by the blood of jesus.
it is not even necessary that they believe
Stephen Bayzik
> > Matthew 27: 24-25
So you're one of those Protestant denominations belonging to the Count
Dracula Synod. Thank God that your Jeeesus didn't have HIV.
However, I must admit that you have come up with one of the best
circumlocutions that I have heard. :-)
Take care there in Wonderland.
--
Stephen Bayzik
Libertarius
Stephen Bayzik wrote:
===>Imagine the vicious, proud Roman governor
first releasing a REAL rebel who actually killed someone,
and then performing a JEWISH RITUAL of washing his hands
because he was going to execute an INNOCENT man!!!
What a farce! -- L.
Libertarius
Tilly wrote:
> the cockroach wrote:
> > a local rabbi invited to the screenings said it was not nearly as anti
> > semtic as he had feared. actually the most antisemitic scenes were
> > deleted.
> >
> > although most of the reviews i have seen from the special shows to
> > church groups were very positive --- in that people were reacting
> > positively to jesus message and the movie --- the few people i spoke
> > with at work who saw an early show were more repulsed by how gory the
> > movie was.
>
> On Fox News (it was early this morning NZ time) they interviewed a RC Bishop
> or Cardinal ,who said he was dismayed by the movie .In his view the film
> concentrated on Jesus's suffering and sacrifice ,as well as Gibson's 'warped
> view' of the role the Jews had in his death.He also said that the gore and
> suffering was outlandish and Pilate came across as a manipulated 'nice
> guy'.In his view the only thing that was good about it ,was that it might
> make some lapsed Christians interested in reading the NT again.
> I was actually surprised that a Catholic theologist would say this!
===>Many Catholic theologian are much better educated than most
Protestant clergy. At least they have some understanding of the
cultural and historical context, instead of making a Pope out of a
book! -- L.
ASP for male heroin junk
that JESUS is THE LOSER but will be a WINNER IN THE END ALTHOUGH UNDER A
DIFFERENT NAME
greets,
rolf joseph maria künen anagram asp for male heroin junk
see ya 2011 or so
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com
"Adiudicator" <Adiudic...@God.Bless.America> schreef in bericht
news:ACMZ8TL73804...@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 'The Passion of the Christ'
>
> The last twelve hours of Jesus Christ is masterfully
> directed by one of the greatest filmmakers of modern
> times, the much-admired and multitalented Mel Gibson.
> This's the most realistic bible story ever committed
> to film, and is certain to have a MAJOR influence on
> every human who sees it. Everyone's talking about it.
>
Leigh_Bee
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 'The Passion of the Christ'
>
> The last twelve hours of Jesus Christ is masterfully
> directed by one of the greatest filmmakers of modern
> times, the much-admired and multitalented Mel Gibson.
> This's the most realistic bible story ever committed
> to film, and is certain to have a MAJOR influence on
> every human who sees it. Everyone's talking about it.
http://frogadmin.yi.org/HOS/
Yes it is just a movie from Mel no doubt with his baggage, but how
does it stack up on the previous Jesus representations? I am not
talking Star Wars/Matrix etc that use a chosen one theme.
Like Last Temptation, Jesus of Montreal, never mind the parodies;
Dogma & clones.
Does it raise the big questions or just push some hot buttons like
Braveheart on Bethlehem say?
All myths are tribal in nature
LB
ASP for male heroin junk
didn't mean tha bug ya!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com
"Adiudicator" <Adiudic...@God.Bless.America> schreef in bericht
news:ACMZ8TL73804...@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 'The Passion of the Christ'
>
> The last twelve hours of Jesus Christ is masterfully
> directed by one of the greatest filmmakers of modern
> times, the much-admired and multitalented Mel Gibson.
> This's the most realistic bible story ever committed
> to film, and is certain to have a MAJOR influence on
> every human who sees it. Everyone's talking about it.
>
Jan Pompe
rmey...@charter.net wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 05:24:19 GMT, Jan Pompe <janp@!dx.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>the crucefiction scene.
>
>
> Is this spelling intentional?
>
Yes
the cockroach
> "the cockroach" <mr...@zog.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns949B4BB4A3...@216.148.227.77...
>
>> "Stephen Bayzik" <stephen...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
>> news:ABf%b.15213$Mo4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
>> > "Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
>> > news:403D6C9F.4B6430C7@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
>> >
>> [snipped]
>> >
>> > And please let us not forget the following. :-)
>
>> > Matthew 27: 24-25
>
>> > "Pilate sent for water and washed his hands in full sight of the
>> > multitude, saying as he did so, I have no part in the death of this
>> > innocent man; it concerns you only. And the whole multitude
>> > answered, His blood be upon us and upon our children."
>> > English translation of the Vulgate
>> >
>> > Take care my thoughtful friend,
>
>> since it is the blood of jesus that atones for sin what that means is
>> that the jews will always be saved by the blood of jesus.
>
>> it is not even necessary that they believe
>
> So you're one of those Protestant denominations belonging to the Count
> Dracula Synod. Thank God that your Jeeesus didn't have HIV.
>
everything i believe is what the holy ghost has revealed to me
may you read with the holy ghost over your shoulder so you can be
enlitetened
Stephen Bayzik
> ===>Imagine the vicious, proud Roman governor
> first releasing a REAL rebel who actually killed someone,
> and then performing a JEWISH RITUAL of washing his hands
> because he was going to execute an INNOCENT man!!!
> What a farce! -- L.
And Pilate was known to be a real S.O.B. in his administration of Judea. I
may be wrong, but I believe that by the time the liturgy of the Church
became standardized, the Church (particularly in the Eastern part of the
Empire) made sure that their Scripture did not depict the death of the
Christ as being the fault of the Empire. Politically the Church and the
Empire were in bed together. And "the Jew" became the whipping boy.
Again take care my thoughtful friend,
--
Stephen Bayzik
Hobbs aka McDaniel
Well you're making a kind of general attack on protestant clergy.
What does it take to be "protestat clergy" ? Basically anybody
says that God has called them to preach or something like that
HOWEVER to be a preacher in any established protestant denomination
OR a church that is supposely independent but a member of an
umbrella organization like the Christian Missioary Alliance
requires at a minimum for one to pass an extensive oral examination
of their theological knowledge conducted by a panel of theologians
who have studied the bible in the original languages. It's like
getting a PhD to become a minister... not winning a doll at the
county fair.
-McDaniel
Michael Cecil (28SW2)
"Michael Cecil (28SW2)" wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
> > "Michael Cecil (28SW2)" wrote;
> >
> > > Dan wrote:
> > >
> > > > No wonder your priest read your essay; you are both talented
> > and
> > > > have a beautiful Christian heart. Maybe one day these others
> > just
> > > > might 'get it'
> > >
> > > Get what?
> >
> > I don't answer rhetorical questions. You know 'what'.
>
> No, really. I am stumped. I don't know what you want me to 'get'.
> Seriously.
>
> > > > I just saw the
> > > > film too, and had to do deep breathing to stop myself from
> > > > breaking down and bawling like a baby.
> > >
> > > So, do you think this makes you holy?
> >
> > I think it makes me human.
>
> Are you serious?
>
> That is the question for me: *Are* you human?
>
> Would a human even *go* to see such a movie in the first place? That
> is my question. It is a movie depicting a man being tortured to death.
>
> I wouldn't even go to a movie depicting an *animal* being tortured to
> death. And even dumb animals are known to become severely dis-
> tressed when placed in close proximity to one of their own species
> that is suffering. But 'humans' like you, apparently, *seek* out such
> 'religious experiences'. Bizarre, at least.
>
> Would you go see a movie depicting one of your parents being
> tortured to death? or one of your children? or even your dog?
>
> Yet, you would go see such a thing about a person who you claim
> to love more than anyone in your family.
>
> It boggles my mind to think that a human would pay to be entertained
> in such a way. And yet this is, apparently, what you and millions of
> others have done. (This is either caused by and/or will result in an
> increase in mass religious psychosis.)
>
> This is something completely other than the problem of the 'sacred'
> anti-Semitism of the movie.
>
> > > It is a serious question.
> > >
> > > Do you think you are holier than those who do not see the
> > > movie?
> >
> > I'm as 'holy' as God sees me as being, and what I think, or you,
> > or anybody else about it has zero say in the matter.
>
> All I am saying is that you are giving the *impression* that you
> consider
> yourself holier because you have seen this movie; that you consider
> that, because you have seen this movie, you have a 'deeper under-
> standing' of the 'Truth' that you did not have before you saw the movie.
>
> But, really, you are *much* more holy than people who do not believe
> as you do--"the Jews", for example.
>
> > > But, there are certain things I don't understand here.
> > >
> > > If you read the reviews, you knew what this movie was about.
> > >
> > > How could anyone be entertained by watching a man being
> > > tortured to death?
> >
> > I didn't go to get entertained.
>
> Flat-out denial is the most effective kind. But you are lying to
> yourself.
>
> *Sure* you went to be entertained.
>
> You took *pleasure* in watching this movie--or you would not
> have watched it. This is the way pleasure is operationally defined.
> If this movie became no longer pleasurable, you would have
> stopped watching it. Maybe the pleasure you felt was guilt, or
> sorrow or horror or whatever. But it *was* a pleasure. And this
> is what you paid for--the pornography of 'sacred' violence.
>
> > I went because I needed to be
> > reminded
>
> Right. It was entertaining and pleasurable for you to view and hear
> what you understood to be a 'validation' of your beliefs. This con-
> firms my statement that you were entertained.
>
> > of what He endured on my behalf,
>
> Not a 'He'; merely a "he", first of all. But you are simply mistaken in
> your belief.
>
> 'Vicarious atonement' is a flagrant violation of the Law; it is
> a contradiction of the Truth of the Torah and the Prophets; it
> is a substitute--and paganized--'explanation' for the reason
> for why Jesus was murdered. And it is the cornerstone of
> Christian anti-Semitism which resulted in the Holocaust.
>
> > and yours as well.
>
> Jesus did not die for my sins because I am not a Christian.
> Christians say that a person, first of all, has to *believe*
> that Jesus 'died for his sins' in order for it to be of any
> benefit to him--in order for him to 'get into heaven', for ex-
> ample.
>
> If, on the other hand, it does *not* make any difference if
> a person believes it, I have nothing to worry about anyway
> since I don't believe it. In other words, I can expect to get
> into heaven in *any* case.
>
> This is why I said I really don't understand what you mean
> by 'get it'.
>
> > > This I simply cannot understand.
> > >
> > > And I doubt that I ever will.
> >
> > I would tend to agree, but hope you are wrong.
>
> Well, ain't you holier than me?
>
> Of *course* you are.
>
> > > > After it ended, I managed
> > > > to make it to my car, thinking myself rather manly for being
> > able
> > > > to control my emotions.
> > >
> > > Really?
> > >
> > > > Sitting behind the steering wheel, I
> > > > reached over to grab my cigarettes, and noticed that my hands
> > > > were shaking violently, uncontrollably. That's when the tears
> > > > began flowing, and I couldn't stop them either.
> > >
> > > So?
> > >
> > > Do you think that this is an indication that you understand
> > what
> > > this is all about?
> >
> > More than some, anyways, yes.
>
> So the propaganda has been much *more* than effective.
>
> It has convinced you of the 'Truth' of your belief merely through the
> presentation of graphic *imagery*--not any intellectual argument
> based upon the Torah or the Prophets; merely *imagery* and
> emotion.
>
> There is no *rational* argument demonstrating that the doctrine
> of 'vicarious atonement' is the 'Truth'. You did not go to the movie
> to see any *argument*. None of the requirements of the Law
> were considered in this movie, nor were the Revelations received
> by Moses and the prophets considered.
>
> Your conclusion is that, because this belief of yours has been
> put into graphic *images*, you are more CERTAIN of its Truth
> than ever before. And, while I do not usually agree with the
> rabbis, in this case they are correct in saying that this movie will
> set back communication between Christians and Jews for
> *decades*.
>
> Christians who, before the movie, may have been willing at
> least to *listen* to alternative perspectives than the doctrine
> of 'vicarious atonement', would, after seeing such graphic
> and violent images, be MUCH less likely to be willing to listen
> to a different point of view. Their minds will have been filled with
> images of those who wanted Jesus dead. And such images
> would, of course, be triggered by even the *slightest* indication
> of disbelief in 'vicarious atonement'.
>
> From now on, the 'dialogue' comes down to Christians
> *telling* Jews that Jesus died for their sins; and the Jews
> *listening* to this without daring to contradict it. This is the
> *only* kind of 'dialogue' Christians are interested in.
>
> > > I would advise you to dry your tears.
> > >
> > > Jesus did not die for your sins or anyone else's.
> > >
> > > And the reason you think this is largely due to the fact that
> > all
> > > of those thinking differently were exterminated by the
> > Christians
> > > a *long* time ago. And for the same reason Jesus was killed.
> > >
> > > He had to be eliminated because he taught that the Doctrine
> > > of the 'resurrection' was similar to the Buddhist Doctrine of
> > > Rebirth. And this threatened the Pharisee Jewish religious
> > > officials to the same degree that it presently threatens the
> > > Pharisee Christian theologians.
> > >
> > > If you cry at all, you should be crying not for what Jesus
> > suffered,
> > > but for the fact that, almost 2000 years after his death, there
> > is
> > > not *one* Christian on the face of the earth who understands
> > the
> > > Teaching of Jesus about the Doctrine of the 'resurrection'.
> > >
> > > But I can imagine that you have NO emotional reaction to
> > > this whatsoever.
> >
> > That's not quite true. I think it's a crying shame
>
> No you don't. You are lying to yourself again.
>
> You are angry at me because I don't believe the pagan nonsense
> you believe even though you have no evidence to support what
> you believe. You believe on the basis of seeing a graphic rep-
> resentation of your beliefs. As Goebbels warned: "Do NOT
> engage the intellect of the audience." And, sure enough, this
> movie CERTAINLY does not engage the intellect.
>
> > you've managed
> > to convince yourself of your own bizarre,
>
> You have not said one word demonstrating the Truth of your
> belief in 'vicarious atonement', taking into consideration what
> the Law and the Prophets have to say about such a thing.
>
> Of course, people like you need *pictures* to 'prove' the
> Truth of what you believe. The problem with the Doctrine
> of Rebirth as taught by Jesus is that it cannot effectively
> be conveyed in pictures. On the contrary, it requires a keen
> intellect to understand it; as well as an effort to determine
> Truth not by emotions and images. This is simply beyond
> your ability.
>
> > dangerous delusions.
>
> How could my disbelief in 'vicarious atonement' be in any
> way dangerous?
>
> But, first, you would have to demonstrate that it is a delusion.
> And, if it is a delusion, what explanation do *you* have for the
> separation between the Gnostics and the Christians? What
> explanation do *you* have for the extermination of the Albig-
> ensians?
>
> > I
> > suppose you believe that Paul was one of those nasty people when
> > he said it was appointed for all men to die once, and be judged.
>
> Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees believed in a physical
> resurrection of a dead body from the grave. The Pharisees
> rejected the Teaching of Jesus. Pharisee Paul contradicted
> the Teaching of Jesus on the 'resurrection'. This is why he
> was a Pharisee; and this is the origin of the idolatry and anti-
> Semitism that resulted in the Holocaust. Without the doctrine
> of 'vicarious atonement' to seduce the pagans, there would
> have been no such thing as Christianity.
>
> Of course, you have no argument to respond with since
> you can only deal in *pictures* to demonstrate 'Truth'.
>
> > Your 'resurrection equals reincarnation' theory is a filthy lie
>
> Present your agument.
>
> You can't.
>
> You don't have any pictures.
>
> >
> > straight out of the mind of Satan.
>
> (I stand corrected. This is certainly a picture.)
>
> You certainly think so. And people thinking just like you in
> the media are *ensuring* that this is not even discussed
> in the public arena. Any fascist institution--Christianity, Inc.,
> for example--is very dependent upon censorship of any
> opposing views for its very survival.
>
> > Do you remember what Gamaliel (sp?) said? When Jesus' followers
> > in Jerusalem were making converts after His death, some fellow
> > Pharisees wanted to round them all up, and exterminate them from
> > the face of the earth. But Gamaliel said that if this new sect
> > were not of God, nothing would ever come of it.
>
> The original followers of Jesus believed in the 'resurrection'
> as a Doctrine of Rebirth. They were replaced by the followers
> of Paul, who turned the Teaching of Jesus upside down in
> order to make it palatable to the Roman pagans--thus, the
> virtual 'sainthood' of the Roman governor, Pilate.
>
> > And if it *were*
> > of God, there was nothing they could do to stop it. Wise words,
> > aren't they?
>
> Then what would you say about Islam?
>
> There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in this world as well.
> And Buddhism and Hinduism have been around for longer than
> Christianity has been around--each with millions of followers.
> Are these religions also from God?
>
> Hurry!!!!. Go find a *picture* to explain this!!!!
>
> > Tell you what. Why don't you start your own church based upon
> > your own dogma, and let's see what comes of it.
>
> Well, Paul started his own church; named it in honor of those
> who murdered Jesus; taught the doctrine of the Pharisees for
> which Jesus was murdered in the first place...
>
> And was SMASHINGLY successful, if not *rich*.
>
> Of course, these 'followers of Jesus' exterminated many
> millions of people along the way--Albigensians, Jews, the
> black peoples of Africa, the indigenous people of the
> Americas, etc., etc.--but, I suppose, you have to 'break
> some eggs to make an omelet'. Right?
>
> Got a PICTURE to respond to this argument?
>
> Or should I wait until the MOVIE comes out?
>
> Michael Cecil
Michael Cecil (28SW2)
> "Michael Cecil (28SW2)" wrote;
>
> > No, really. I am stumped. I don't know what you want me to
> 'get'.
> > Seriously.
>
> 'Getting it' requires faith in the subject matter, of which you
> admittedly have none.
I don't believe what you believe because I have already determined
that it is a contradiction of the Teaching of Jesus.
> So what's the point of trying to describe
> that faith to one such as you?
You tell me.
> It's like trying to describe the
> colour green to a blind man.
Then why don't you just give up?
The only people you can convince are, apparently, people
who already believe.
> Nevertheless, I will do my best to
> try to convey to you some essential points within our faith
Look. I know what your faith is. I am saying that what you believe
is a contradiction of what Jesus taught.
> that
> you will also not 'get', but what with your self-styled "keen
> intellect" and all, just might be able to grasp somewhere in your
> vast mind.
I get the impression that, for some reason, this is not sincere.
> > > > > I just saw the
> > > > > film too, and had to do deep breathing to stop myself
> from
> > > > > breaking down and bawling like a baby.
> > > >
> > > > So, do you think this makes you holy?
> > >
> > > I think it makes me human.
> >
> > Are you serious?
>
> What did I say about asking me rhetorical questions? If I wasn't
> serious, I wouldn't have said it in the first place.
>
> > That is the question for me: *Are* you human?
> >
> > Would a human even *go* to see such a movie in the first place?
> That
> > is my question. It is a movie depicting a man being tortured to
> death.
> >
> > I wouldn't even go to a movie depicting an *animal* being
> tortured to
> > death. And even dumb animals are known to become severely dis-
> > tressed when placed in close proximity to one of their own
> species
> > that is suffering. But 'humans' like you, apparently, *seek*
> out such
> > 'religious experiences'. Bizarre, at least.
> >
> > Would you go see a movie depicting one of your parents being
> > tortured to death? or one of your children? or even your dog?
> >
> > Yet, you would go see such a thing about a person who you claim
> > to love more than anyone in your family.
>
> Yes, on the face of it, your argument would seem natural.
It is a very simple argument, an unsophisticated argument, an
argument, perhaps, of a child, for whom it is so obvious.
You have to be jaded and sophisticated and conditioned and
in self-denial--in other words, a *grown up*--not to see something
so obvious: It is not exciting or pleasurable or entertaining to
see a depiction of human torture. And, if such a thing *is*
pleasurable to you, something is wrong that has nothing to
do with religion.
> As
> somebody else noted, going to that film was akin to watching a
> 'snuff film' with the victim being a member of your own family.
Not precisely, but similar, yes.
> The film was gruesome, no doubt whatsoever,
For some reason I don't think you use these words seriously.
> and I have no
> intention of seeing it again, unless I feel I *have* to.
Why would you *have* to see it?
That is a genuinely bizarre notion--that any person could
*have* to see this film. What if it had never been produced?
Would you, then, *have* to produce it?
> I was
> not 'entertained' in the least,
This is downright comical.
You were 'entertained' by watching a bloody, ultra-violent
'validation' of your beliefs. This gave you pleasure; this made
you feel secure in the belief that you know the 'Truth'.
*That's* ENTERTAINMENT, whatever you want to call it.
> although I recognize that from
> many viewpoints, the movie was about as perfectly executed as any
> that I have ever seen.
It was an edit.
Why choose only the last 12 hours?
What about the *life* Jesus lived?
What about the Teaching of Jesus?
All of this was set aside as being of NO significance in
comparison with the last 12 hours.
This is what 'vicarious atonement' insists upon, of
course, which is only one of the reasons why it is so
intensely perverse.
> But I did not 'enjoy' it in the least.
An incredible statement.
You enjoyed crying about this or you would not have gone in the
first place. You enjoyed feeling guilty or sorrowful or self-righteous
in your belief that you now know the 'Truth' better than you did
before. This is an enjoyment, no matter how much you might try
to convince yourself otherwise.
> You deny as much, but not being me, I think I'm a better judge of
> my motives for seeing a movie such as that.
Of course you do.
> So give me credit at
> least for knowing my own mind better than you do, Michael.
You are not an objective observer, for the very simple reason that
you *need* to get into heaven.
You are deeply involved in the outcome of the argument.
Your 'salvation' and 'getting to heaven' and all the rest *depend*
upon maintaining a series of delusions and denials of fact.
> So
> don't you *ever* put words in my mouth I never uttered, my
> friend. Fair warning.
Just admit that you felt joy and were entertained by seeing
this suffering. Watching this suffering--or the depiction of
suffering--was pleasurable to you. This is why you paid your
money--to get this kind of pleasure. And, if I wanted to be
pleasured by watching a depiction of a person being tortured
to death, I would buy a ticket myself, or use one that had been
given to me.
> I am not even an occasional moviegoer; they're overpriced and
> almost never worth it.
But this one *was* 'worth' it. You got what you paid for.
What you paid for was pleasure.
> But I knew I had to make the trek to see
> 'this' one, and force myself to watch it nevertheless.
Why?
To learn precisely *what*?
You already know the story, or at least *your* version of the
story. What more do you know of significance about your
version of the story after seeing this movie?
> I went
> there to watch a friend I have known for a while now,
This person has been dead for almost 2,000 years. It is
against the Torah to talk to dead people.
> a brother,
> Who happened to be God made man,
This is what a pagan theology teaches you.
Why you choose to believe it is *anyone's* guess.
> suffer the horrific tortures and
> ultimately die due to them, being so much pinned like a gutted
> fish to what was basically a tree by his fellowe man.
And you knew that prior to spending your money.
So, it wasn't that you wanted to know how the story ended.
You paid your money because you thought that there would
be some particular *pleasure* involved in seeing these images
of torture.
This is a psychiatrist's problem to determine the origin of
such a motivation.
> As Christians, we believe that Jesus, the second Person of the
> Trinity,
Which is idolatry and a contradiction of the Torah and the
Prophets.
But you don't care, because you need to get into heaven.
> was the instrument by which all those things were
> created, ultimately. The wood of the cross, the thorns, the
> nails, the spears, and the hands which drove them into His Body.
> You do not, fair enough.
Because it contradicts the Teaching of Jesus himself.
> We further believe He obeyed His Father, the First Person of the
> Trinity, to leave the Glory He shared with His Father in Heaven,
> and allow Himself to become a human being, quite a step down in
> nature for one such as He.
A flagrant violation of the Revelations received by Moses.
> We believe He did so because it was necessary for the 'Ultimate
> Sacrifice' to be made, for God Himself in actuality, to become
> the innocent Lamb, to shed it's innocent blood to once and for
> all expiate the sins of mankind.
And this is vile paganism, even if the names have been changed
to protect the guilty.
> The entire Old Testament, not
> just the Torah, is in part the story of how God demanded the
> sacrifice of innocent blood upon the Mercy Seat in the Holy of
> Holies to atone for the sins of the guilty, and unless that blood
> be guiltless, that expiation of sins could not take place. You do
> not, and that is fair enough too.
The problem is that you blow it all out of proportion by, for
example, extending this 'atoning power' to generations not
yet born until the end of time. Can't be done.
> We believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of Mosaic
> Law set out in the Torah, as well as the prophets who predicted
> His arrival, and inevitable rejection by the people of Israel,
> and his being 'cut off', or killed by them, just as they did to
> the prophets before Him, after He had given them the opportunity
> to accept Him for Who he claimed to be.
This does not necessarily follow.
If he had been 'sacrificed' by being killed shortly after his
birth--with the other male children who were killed by Herod--
it would still have fulfilled the requirements of your 'vicarious
atonement'. Thus, it was not necessary for Jesus to have said
ONE word, if his only purpose was to come to be killed for
your sins. No need for any Sermon on the Mount. No need for
him to tell people that John the Baptist was Elijah 'raised from
the dead'. No need for any Miracles or anything. All he had to
do was wait around until it was determined to be the right time
to die for your sins. So, you can safely just throw out anything
said by Jesus as not really being relevant to going to heaven.
Just believe that he died for your sins and you got a one-way
ticket to heaven.
>
> At whichever point in His life or ministry Jesus came to
> understand which of the two aspects of the Messianic prophecies
> predicting His coming, the suffering servant, or triumphant king
> would actually be His fate, is debatable.
>
> I myself believe that He finally realized His fate during His
> Passion, beginning where the film starts, not surprisingly. For
> me, it was one of the most 'moving' parts of the movie, watching
> his heart and soul being tormented inside out, knowing what His
> own loving Father was ultimately asking of Him in the end, and
> His finally acquiescing to that Will.
This is what you suppose Jesus was thinking--looking at him
through the eyes of the Pharisee, Paul.
> Jesus knew the Scriptures
> well, such as Isaiah which held out the two paths, and might have
> hoped to avoid the 'suffering servant' role.
>
> After all, just a couple days before, He was greeted by thousands
> while riding on a donkey entering Jerusalem, hailed as the 'Son
> of David' claiming His own.
> Now, less than 72 hours later, His own Father was telling Him
> that that was not to be the outcome, after all. Not only that,
> while telling Him this the Father began to pile on top of Jesus'
> soul the total lifetime sins of each and every human being who
> ever lived, and ever would.
Think about this rationally for just a few minutes.
What is involved here is an INFINITE amount of evil.
Literally.
The evil of those who push the buttons of thermonuclear war
at sometime in the near or far-distant future exterminating
hundreds of millions of people, for example. It becomes downright
delusional to think that one person could suffer so much as to
'atone' for that degree of evil.
But this is the reason for such ultra-violence in this movie.
It must be impressed upon Christians that the suffering of
Jesus was effective to atone for ALL evil. No doubt what-
soever must be left in the minds of the movie goers that
this suffering is the WORST in human history.
> Mine, yours, everyone's.
Not mine and not everyone's, at least.
> One human
> life, given in exchange for all. But it would be for all those
> humans to either accept that 'idea', or reject it.
I reject it because it was not anything that Jesus could have
believed while teaching the Doctrine that Jesus taught.
It is, on its face, delusional paganism.
NOTHING in the Torah or the Prophets allows for such
a thing.
> You rejected it,
Because it is nonsensical.
> so be it. That is your God-given free will, that
> most terrible of gifts He has given us, should we use it
> unwisely.
>
> We have not. We accepted it the free gift, one quite undeserved
> and quite unrepayable. But it was offered to us, and we chose,
> unlike you and most, to say yes. When we did, the hour that we
> first truly believed, God began to give us the first downpayment
> of that 'promise', the instillment of the Holy Spirit, the Third
> Person of the Trinity within our own souls, to act as
> 'comforter', 'instructor', and 'convictor'.
This is what you believe, no doubt about it.
But it is all built upon a foundation of sand and fantasy.
If Jesus had contradicted the Torah to the extent that you insist
upon, he could not *possibly* have been who you claim him to
be. I'm not particularly concerned at all about *who* Jesus was.
His Teaching is what was important.
Of course, Christianity completely reverses this priority, which
is why it is merely pagan idolatry.
> As 'convictor', the Holy Spirit shows us our sins, how much they
> hurt Him, the Father, and especially how much they re-crucify the
> Son,
Paul crucified the Teaching of Jesus by denying the Truth about
the 'resurrection' that Jesus taught. This was not merely metaph-
orical, as the Albigensians later found out.
> all over again, if we choose to continue to sin,
You have chosen to continue to lie about the 'resurrection', just
like the Pharisee rabbis of today continue to teach what they
taught 2000 years ago in contradiction of the Torah.
> and not do
> His Will that He has put before us,
Do you really think Jesus wants you to lie about his Teaching?
> those who would follow the
> Lamb of God, His Son Jesus the Christ.
You are a follower of Paul.
It is difficult enough to determine the Truth about the 'resurrection'
without attempting to get into the problem of sins and guilt.
> As Saint Paul, whom you dismiss as a fellow 'murderer' of Christ,
Not at all.
He did everything in his power to exterminate the Teaching of
Jesus. And he has been quite successful, as is attested to by
people like you and other Christians.
>
> said, to paraphrase, 'Although I know the good I must do, I find
> myself being unable to do it, and the bad that I know I must not
> do, I cannot help myself but succumb to it'.
Paul was a Pharisee--a simple fact that you cannot deal with.
> We are all only human beings, just as much as Jesus *actually*
> became 2,000 years ago, no more, and no less in a very real
> sense. He was just as susceptible to the temptations we all face
> day in and day out, but whereas our Faith fails us, allowing us
> to actually stumble to at least some of them, His was so strong
> as to be able to avoid doing so.
This is necessary to your belief system--which necessity does
not confer upon such a belief the necessity that it is the Truth.
But the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit know only too well what
Your naked contempt of the Torah is not easy to hide.
> it means to be human, as what Jesus endured, not only during His
> Passion, but throughout His life, was equally shared by Them as
> well. I'm sure They already had a fairly good idea what it meant
> to be human already, but the fact of Jesus' life could only have
> reinforced and bolstered that knowledge.
>
> As Christians, we believe that Jesus was sent to die for us,
And this is lunacy.
You say this because this is what Paul needed to believe in for
reasons of his own.
Moses was sent for all kinds of reasons. So were the prophets
of Israel--to warn and to teach. Only when it comes to Jesus is
the conclusion made that the only reason he came was to DIE.
What an idiot god it is that you worship.
> just
> so we who choose to take the gift offered to us, can one day
> enter the Gates of Heaven, and be with Them, and all our brothers
> and sisters throughout time who also believed, forevermore. You
> choose to believe that you can somehow enter that Heavenly Realm
Huhhhhhhhhhh?????
Where did I *ever* say this?
(I *love* it when people try to put words into my mouth.)
When a person believes in the Doctrine of Rebirth, it excludes this
whole fantasy world of "heaven" as defined by the pagan-Christian
metaphysical philosophers.
> through some non-existing backdoor, and that is entirely your
> right as well.
No. It is much worse than that.
I am saying this was not taught by Jesus at all but by Paul.
<snippage of words not relevant to the argument>
> That is why we forced ourselves to watch such graphic and
> horrific images on a screen, Michael. We already knew the story,
> we already knew the outcome, we already knew the horrors because
> the Holy Spirit already 'showed' us within our souls before we
> stepped onto the theatre's steps. We just merely needed to be
> reminded of it,
This is precisely where I think you step off into psycho-pathology.
> in all its flesh-ripping goriness, nail-pounding,
> blood-dripping realism,
Clearly, you take *pleasure* in repeating these words.
> knowing that it was our friend, our
> brother, our Lord who suffered those things on our behalf (ALL of
> us...), because of that awesome, indescribable Love.
He suffered because of the Truth he spoke and because that Truth
threatened the Jewish priesthood.
That is as far as it goes.
And you won't even accept that.
> A Love that
The love he had was a love of the Truth.
You delude yourself to think that he would want to suffer so much
for people he did not even know and never would know.
> promised Life eternal to those would believe in it.
This kind of mentality can 'justify' *any* kind of evil.
You do not in any way deny my fundamental assertion--that you
take PLEASURE in this
> Whereas a lot of people saw only brutality, torture, thorns,
> nails, chains, spears, gore, death, hatred, racism, and came out
> of the theatre muttering to themselves wondering what the
> frigging 'point' was
These people, of course, are the stupid or evil people--people
who merely saw the reality of what had happened.
> , there were others, daubing the tears and
> snot from our eyes and nose, saying to ourselves 'mea culpa,
> Lord, mea culpa, Jesus, I am *so* sorry for what *I* put you
> through...'
Yes. Yes. These are the HOLY people--the 'Chosen' people--
who saw the 'Truth'.
You are the 'lambs'; they are the 'goats'.
But let's put some parameters on this.
If you personally are responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus,
what is your personal responsibility for the slaughter of the
Albigensians or the Jews during the Holocaust or even the
people in Iraq today?
If anyone tried to assert that you were responsible for that
evil, you would say that they are off their rocker.
> If I could, Michael, I would buy yourself
I don't like you.
But I would not allow you to waste your money for me on
a ticket. I would only throw it away.
> and I a ticket to that
> movie, and force myself to sit through it again, hearing the
> sounds.
And I certainly would not have you experience such pleasure
again for *my* sake.
> But I wouldn't be watching it, looking at the cellulose
> film strip. I would have my eyes closed, praying for you to
> *see*, for you to finally 'get it'.
This is classic.
A picture is not an ARGUMENT.
Making a graphic representation of something does not
mean it is true.
Have you ever seen the graphic representations of how people
in the Middle Ages attempted to demonstrate that it was wrong
to assume that the earth rotated on its axis?
There are pictures of people falling down and objects flying
through the air because of the earth's rotation. And the pictures
are quite convincing. But they are simply wrong.
So watching a movie about Jesus' suffering does not demonstrate
that 'vicarious atonement' is the Truth.
> If you still want to debate
> the rest of it, what the false Christians
Christians are Christians.
They are just not followers of Jesus but followers of Paul.
> did to whom, the
> various population sizes of certain faiths, that's fine.
The Albigensians were killed for a REASON.
They taught that Jesus taught a Doctrine of Rebirth and the
officials of the Roman Church could not effectively contradict
that Teaching, as neither could the Sadducees contradict
the Teaching of Jesus about the 'resurrection'.
> Let me
> know. If you still don't 'get' this part, I don't see the point
> of it, though.
>
> Jesus recognized Saint Paul for what he 'actually' was, on the
> road to Damascus.
Paul was a Pharisee and a diabolical genius.
> I'll give you the benefit of the same ultimate
> doubt, for His sake. Where there is life, there is still hope.
Don't give me any benefit of the doubt.
Paul contradicted Jesus on the 'resurrection'.
Without this contradiction, there would have been no Chris-
tianity.
And this Christianity resulted in the horrors of the Holocaust.
There is a straight line relationship between the doctrine of
'vicarious atonement' and anti-Semitism.
That's my argument. And it can be supported from a variety
of sources.
Michael Cecil
Michael Cecil (28SW2)
"Michael Cecil (28SW2)" wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
> > So what's the point of trying to describe
> > that faith to one such as you?
>
> You tell me.
>
> > It's like trying to describe the
> > colour green to a blind man.
>
> Then why don't you just give up?
More importantly, why do you think that *you* have to become
involved in this argument?
There are a few hundreds of thousands of officials of the Roman
church, the last time I checked, who make their *living* off of
making this argument. Do you *really* believe that your take
on this argument is capable of convincing people that these
Roman church officials cannot convince? And this is not even
to mention the hundreds of thousands of Protestant religious
officials.
Meanwhile, almost *every* newspaper in the country is vomiting
out --*unopposed*--Christian 'vicarious atonement' propaganda.
The reason I write to these newsgroups is that this is the only
place, other than on my web page, that this argument can be
presented; nor is there anyone else to present it.
There are hundreds of thousands of media and religious officials
to spout what you believe. Why not just relax and 'leave the driving
to them'?
> <snippage of words not relevant to the argument>
>
> > If I could, Michael, I would buy yourself
> > and I a ticket to that
> > movie, and force myself to sit through it again, hearing the
> > sounds.
> > But I wouldn't be watching it, looking at the cellulose
> > film strip. I would have my eyes closed, praying for you to
> > *see*, for you to finally 'get it'.
>
I'm not sure you understand my argument, then.
I don't deny that Jesus suffered and died by crucifixion.
What I deny is that he died as a 'vicarious atonement' for anyone's
sins OR that this can be *validated* by seeing a MOVIE about it.
What if I wanted to take you to the movie to make you see how
Jesus died because he contradicted the Pharisaical interpretation
of the Doctrine of the 'resurrection'?
You would say that the movie demonstrates NO such thing.
And you would be right.
The movie validates NOTHING. And, yet, the media in this country
are quoting ad nauseum the statements of movie-goers who
insist that it does. ("I dare anyone to go see that movie and not
believe"--this is one of my favorites.)
This is why I direct people to my web page--to read the argument,
dispassionately, if possible, to ascertain whether I am telling the
Truth.
The movie does not argue the 'Truth' of 'vicarious atonement'.
It begins with the assumption that this is *unassailable* Biblical
Doctrine...
And then it goes about attempting to make this as horrifying as
possible to spiritually 'edify' those who believe this.
The movie is for the purpose of inflaming the passions of
those who believe, *not* to present any argumet about
the 'Truth' of Christian theology.
Michael Cecil
web page at:
Dan
"Michael Cecil (28SW2)" wrote;
> > Dan wrote:
> >
> > > So what's the point of trying to describe
> > > that faith to one such as you?
> >
> > You tell me.
> >
> > > It's like trying to describe the
> > > colour green to a blind man.
> >
> > Then why don't you just give up?
For the same *precise* reason you do not.
>
> More importantly, why do you think that *you* have to become
> involved in this argument?
>
> There are a few hundreds of thousands of officials of the Roman
> church, the last time I checked, who make their *living* off of
> making this argument. Do you *really* believe that your take
> on this argument is capable of convincing people that these
> Roman church officials cannot convince? And this is not even
> to mention the hundreds of thousands of Protestant religious
> officials.
And I'm sure they're much more capable of handling this debate
than I ever could, no doubt. But, they're either presently busy,
or dead, unfortunately, to attend. So I'm volunteering as their
surrogate.
>
> Meanwhile, almost *every* newspaper in the country is vomiting
> out --*unopposed*--Christian 'vicarious atonement' propaganda.
As opposed to your vomiting out your own 'resurrection equals
reincarnation' propaganda. David versus Goliath. I'll give you
points for sheer guts at least.
>
> The reason I write to these newsgroups is that this is the only
> place, other than on my web page, that this argument can be
> presented; nor is there anyone else to present it.
Ditto, defending Christianity against various heresies isn't my
major either. This is just another rest stop along that highway.
>
> There are hundreds of thousands of media and religious
officials
> to spout what you believe. Why not just relax and 'leave the
driving
> to them'?
I enjoy the view from behind the wheel better, and I get to play
with the air conditioning, just to piss off everyone sleeping in
the back of the bus.
>
> > <snippage of words not relevant to the argument>
> >
> > > If I could, Michael, I would buy yourself
> > > and I a ticket to that
> > > movie, and force myself to sit through it again, hearing
the
> > > sounds.
> > > But I wouldn't be watching it, looking at the cellulose
> > > film strip. I would have my eyes closed, praying for you to
> > > *see*, for you to finally 'get it'.
> >
>
> I'm not sure you understand my argument, then.
>
> I don't deny that Jesus suffered and died by crucifixion.
>
> What I deny is that he died as a 'vicarious atonement' for
anyone's
> sins OR that this can be *validated* by seeing a MOVIE about
it.
>
> What if I wanted to take you to the movie to make you see how
> Jesus died because he contradicted the Pharisaical
interpretation
> of the Doctrine of the 'resurrection'?
Depends. Would you also spring for the Cokes and popcorn too? If
so, I'm in like a dirty shirt, like I am *so* there, man. What's
the movie called anyhow?
>
> You would say that the movie demonstrates NO such thing.
>
> And you would be right.
>
> The movie validates NOTHING. And, yet, the media in this
country
> are quoting ad nauseum the statements of movie-goers who
> insist that it does. ("I dare anyone to go see that movie and
not
> believe"--this is one of my favorites.)
Funny you should mention that, I'm presently chatting with
somebody on another NG who took her non-Christian boyfriend to
the movie, and while she, as a Christian already, didn't actually
'get it', he apparently did. Maybe that's what really pissing you
off about the matter.
Perhaps you ought to approach somebody in Hollywood, tell them
your story idea, and see if they bite. But be forewarned, just as
Mel Gibson had to struggle to get his picture made and released,
you will also face the same persecution and obstacles. No servant
is greater than his Hollywood Masters.
>
> This is why I direct people to my web page--to read the
argument,
> dispassionately, if possible, to ascertain whether I am telling
the
> Truth.
>
> The movie does not argue the 'Truth' of 'vicarious atonement'.
>
> It begins with the assumption that this is *unassailable*
Biblical
> Doctrine...
>
> And then it goes about attempting to make this as horrifying as
> possible to spiritually 'edify' those who believe this.
>
> The movie is for the purpose of inflaming the passions of
> those who believe, *not* to present any argumet about
> the 'Truth' of Christian theology.
That's true too, but *actual* Truth either rings a bell in the
eyes and ears of the beholder, or they ring hollow.
So, good luck with *your* 'truth' Michael. By all means, keep
gonging that bell of yours; at least *somebody's* bound to hear
it for what it obviously is one day.
Michael's website can be located at
http://www.deadseanaghammadiresearch.com
I'll pass, I've heard enough of your 'truth' already. As for me,
I'll follow the Son...
Shame that you don't like me, Michael. In your reincarnation
philosophy, we might have been, or will be friends. But it
remains a shame, in ultimate truth.
Mary Hogan
that movie...When they started making the temple guards look like Chicago
thugs...I was incensed!!!
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:oa7%b.7077$921....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> "Mary Hogan" <ho...@zoominternet.net> wrote in message
> news:403cf...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > Yes, and yes!!!
> > "Adiudicator" <Adiudic...@God.Bless.America> wrote in message
>
>
> Susan
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Michael Cecil (28SW2)
> "Michael Cecil (28SW2)" wrote;
>
> > Meanwhile, almost *every* newspaper in the country is vomiting
> > out --*unopposed*--Christian 'vicarious atonement' propaganda.
>
> As opposed to your vomiting out your own 'resurrection equals
> reincarnation'
You don't even understand the most simple thing about what
I am saying.
I am not saying 'resurrection equals reincarnation'.
The word I use is Rebirth because reincarnation depends upon the
existence of a metaphysical 'soul' to 're'-incarnate. This is an
error for the same reason that a 'soul' going to 'heaven' or 'hell'
is an error.
But, for someone who can deal only in pictures, this is prolly
too complicated for you to comprehend.
> propaganda. David versus Goliath. I'll give you
> points for sheer guts at least.
Just a few comments.
What I am saying is not propaganda; it is an argument.
You call it propaganda merely because you disagree with it.
Propaganda is for the purpose of preserving a particular institution
such as a political party or a business or something like that.
This is why what you say is propaganda. It is for the purpose
of preserving Christianity, Inc.
I am not paid to argue this, whereas hundreds of thousands of
people--and, over the past 2000 years, millions of people--have
made their living by arguing what you are arguing. This is one
of the things Jesus was objecting to.
I have attempted to engage your intellect in this argument, but
the only thing you can deal with is imagery and emotions. For
all practical purposes, you are, in relation to this argument,
pre-verbal.
But there is no "Sesame Street" version of my argument.
You need to be at least verbal in order to understand it.
I got no pictures or movies to explain my argument.
So, from your perspective, my argument is inherently weak.
This just so happens to be the structure of the reality in
which we live.
When you no longer need the "Sesame Street" version
of Truth, let me know and maybe we can have a discussion.
Michael Cecil
Rick
"The Last Church" <bleah...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:kga04052bgh9bur4k...@4ax.com...
> Will the real Jesus please stand up? There have been many men like
> Jesus and if Christians were to find one today they would hang him
> again!
>
Stand up, turn away from your computer screen, then ask. Jesus is standing
right behind you, he's in front of you, nex to you, above you and between
your feet.
Seek and ye shall find
Sajo Markecz
"Michael Cecil (28SW2)" <mj...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:40408F8F...@earthlink.net...
>
The Romans at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ were pagans or
polytheists, and the supreme sky god of the pagan Roman pantheon was
Jupiter, also known as Deus [ Zeus for the pagan or polytheist Greeks ].
When the Romans later began to convert to Christianity, they began to call
the originally supreme God of the Jewish religion, called Yahweh, by the
Latin name of Deus. The Arabs when they converted to Islam, a religion that
grew out of the Prophet Muhammad's interpretation of the Jewish and
Christian religions, called the Hebrew God Yahweh by the Arabic name -
Allah.
The early converts to Christianity included the Jews as well as the pagan or
polytheist inhabitants of the Roman Empire. The Jews who converted to
Christianity in the early centuries of the A.D. era believed that Jesus
Christ when He was on earth was the God Yahweh Himself in the body of a man,
The Word of God made flesh [ see the Gospel of St. John, chapter 1, verses
1 - 5 ], whose coming had been prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus Christ
Himself told His disciples that someday after His Ascension back into
heaven, that He would one day return again to earth as the Son of Man, or to
use the Greek term, as the Parousia. Although Jesus might have shared the
same genetic material as his earthly father, Joseph, this was not brought
about as the result of sexual reproduction, but as the result of a miracle,
because nothing is impossible with God [ see Mark 10 : 27 ].
Although the pagan Romans forbade the Jews from living within the city walls
of Jerusalem after they crushed a patriotic or nationalistic war of
independence launched by the Jews against their pagan Roman imperial masters
in 135 A.D., the pagan Romans did not forbid the Jews from living within the
other parts of the Roman province of Judea. In the early 300's A.D., the
Romans, now officially converted to Christianity, allowed the Jews to again
live within the city walls of Jerusalem. Many of the Jewish inhabitants of
the province of Judea converted to either Christianity or the Greco - Roman
pagan religion. When the Arab Muslims began to invade the then Christian
Byzantine or East Roman province of Judea from the 630's A.D. onwards, many
of the Christian inhabitants of Judea began to convert to Islam, in order to
avoid the higher poll tax levied on non - Muslims by the Arab Muslims. The
Roman Empire split into an eastern and a western half in 395 A.D., with the
western half collapsing by 476 A.D., and the eastern half collapsing by 1453
A.D. Since the first century A.D., until the reestablishment of the Jewish
state of Israel in 1948, a Jewish minority continued to live in the region
of Galilee.
Jesus Christ did tell His Apostles to preach the Christian Gospel to all the
nations of the world according to Matthew 28 : 18 - 20. But Jesus Christ
also taught in Matthew 7 : 12 and Luke 6 : 31 that we should do to others
what we would want them to do to us. Therefore, Jesus Christ would not have
sanctioned the use of force and violence in converting people to
Christianity.
Martin Luther the German [ born in 1483 and died in 1546 ], published in
1543 an essay called "On the Jews and Their Lies ," in which Luther urged
that Jewish synagogues be burnt, because most of the Jews refused to convert
to Christianity on a large scale, which Martin Luther hoped would be a sign
of the return of Jesus Christ in the near future. This essay, as also the
other printed and published essays of Martin Luther, were often reprinted,
studied, taught, and preached in Germany, at least before Germany's final
defeat in the Second World War in 1945. In 1938, in Nazi Germany, on
Kristallnacht [ Crystalnight, or The Night of Broken Glass ], many Jewish
synagogues were burnt, as Martin Luther had urged in his often reprinted and
preached 1543 essay called "On the Jews and Their Lies." This essay was
often preached by most German Lutheran pastors, with a few exceptions, until
May 8, 1945. After the German federal election of the 5th of March, 1933,
Alfred von Hugenberg, the leader of the mainly Lutheran laypersons' [ non -
pastors ] "German National Peoples' Party," formed a coalition with the
Nazis, in order to outvote the Communists and Social Democrats. By Lutheran
laypersons' or non - pastors, we should remember that Martin Luther called
Christians "the priesthood of believers." The Nazis gained about 44% of the
seats in the lower house of the German federal parliament, the Reichstag, in
the German federal election of the 5th of March, 1933. On the 14th of July,
1933, all political parties except the Nazi Party were prohibited in Nazi
Germany. However, Alfred von Hugenberg, who died in 1951, and who was the
leader of the mainly Lutheran laypersons' "German National Peoples' Party,"
continued to be a member of the German Reichstag until 1945, even when all
political parties except the Nazi Party were banned in Germany after the
14th of July, 1933.
From 1929 - 1933, the Nazis gained the largest votes in German state
elections where the Lutherans formed the majority of the states' population.
Between 1929 - 1933, these following German states, all of them with a
mainly Lutheran population, had state governments where the Nazis were
either coalition leaders or partners : Braunschweig [ Brunswick in
English ], Mecklenburg, Mecklenburg - Strelitz, Lubeck, Thuringia, Saxony -
Anhalt, Harzburg, Oldenburg, and Lippe. Only the German state of Schleswig -
Holstein, another mainly Lutheran state, had a state legislature between
1929 - 1933 where the Nazis had a majority of the seats in that state
legislature. Schleswig - Holstein had been taken from Denmark by Germany in
a war that had broken out in 1864 and again in 1866, although in 1920 the
northern third of Schleswig was returned to Denmark after a League of
Nations sponsored referendum had been held on the issue as one of the terms
of the Versailles Peace Treaty with Germany. The Nazis gained their lowest
votes in the rural and mainly Catholic areas of southern Bavaria, while they
gained more votes in the northern parts of Bavaria ,also known as Franconia,
an area of Germany that has a mixed Catholic and Lutheran population. Most
of the Catholics of Germany live in the southern, south-eastern, and western
parts of Germany.
Here are some of the writings of Martin Luther on how to deal with the Jews
of Germany:
When Martin Luther was asked whether it is morally justifiable to box the
ears of a Jew, he said "certainly. I for one would smack him on the jaw.
Were I able, I would knock him down and stab him in my anger. It is lawful,
according to both the human and the divine law, to kill a robber; then it is
even more permissible to slay a blasphemer".
"If I had to baptise a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang
a stone round his neck and push him over with the words ' I baptise thee in
the name of Abraham' ".
"We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them".
"The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary
thieves".
"Set fire to their synagogues and schools; and what will not burn, heap
earth over it so that no man may see a stone or relic of them forever".
Pages 50 - 51 in
"http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html",
Martin Luther ~ Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor, by Peter F. Wiener, Author of
German For the Scientist, and German With Tears, Hutchinson & Co. (
Publishers ) Ltd. London : New York : Melbourne : Sydney. The work was put
into electronic format by Patsy Jackson for Tentmaker Publications - 118
Walnut - Hermann, Missouri, 65041, U.S.A.
See also Who voted for the Nazis?(electoral history of the National
Socialist German Workers Party), by Dick Geary, Professor of Modern History
at the University of Nottingham and the author of Hitler and Nazism (
Routledge 1993 ), in History Today, October 1998, in association with The
Gale Group and LookSmart, 2000,
"http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1373/n10_v48/21207858/print.jhtml"
One of the reasons why Germany, out of all the other nations, had the Nazis
come to power during the economic Great Depression of 1929 - 1939, was
because Germany lacked a strong democratic tradition. Between 1850 - 1919,
the German state of Brandenburg - Prussia had a three class electoral law,
although the state of Bavaria had introduced universal adult male suffrage
in 1904, followed by Baden - Wurttemberg [ formerly Swabia ], in 1906 . The
German state governments nominated the members of the German federal upper
house, the Bundesrat, which, along with the German Chancellor and Kaiser,
had final veto powers over the German federal lower house, the Bundestag.
The German Catholics are found mostly in the southern, south-eastern, and
western parts of Germany, and in March 1938 German-speaking Austria was
"forcibly" annexed by Nazi Germany.
Martin Luther the German [ born in 1483 and died in 1546 ], basing his views
on St. Paul's epistle to the Romans ch. 13 : 1 - 7, urged that the German
peasant revolt of 1525 be brutally suppressed by the German knights, in his
1525 printed and published essay called "Against the Thieving and Murdering
Hordes of Peasants." St. Paul the Apostle wrote in his epistle to the
Romans, chapter 13 : 1 - 7, that all authorities who wield the sword are
appointed by God to enforce the law. The word "authorities" is a plural word
however. In the U.S.A., the adult male citizen voters, who have the
constitutional authority to elect their politicians, also have the
constitutional authority under the Second Bill of Rights to bear arms as
members of a well regulated state militia, for example, the U.S. National
Guard, which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted as being a safeguard
intended by the American law makers of the 1780's to protect the states from
any likelihood that the U.S. federal government would become dictatorial,
although the state, county, and municipal governments are just as likely to
become dictatorial, as the southern U.S. states often treated their black,
or very dark brown minorities, in a dictatorial manner. However, I still
believe that rioters should be dispersed by firing rubber-coated metal
bullets into their legs, stomachs, and chests, with the use of scopes for
accurate aiming and semi-automatic rifles to control the rate of fire. The
safety of the riot police comes before the safety of rioters, because
peaceful and legal protesters lose many civil rights when they decide to
become violent rioters and cowardly mob tyrants.
Martin Luther's views on predestination and God's foreknowledge are set out
in his 1525 published essay called "On the Bondage of the Will." Although
free will exists according to 1 Timothy 2 : 1 - 4 and 2 Peter 3 : 9, since
these two references from the New Testament says that God wants everyone to
be saved, God, who is eternal, with no beginning and no end, and who is all
knowing, knows what choices people will make in the future [ see the Acts of
the Apostles 15 : 18 ]. God is not the author of evil, but Satan, the fallen
angel, is. Personally, I have up to a certain extent great admiration for
Girolamo Savonarola [ 1452 - 1498 ] and Cornelius Otto Jansen [ 1585 -
1638 ]. From faith and the gift of God's grace, good works flow [ see
Ephesians 2 : 8 - 10 by St. Paul the Apostle ]. Repenting out of fear or
attrition is acceptable according to Proverbs 13 : 13, Proverbs 14 : 26 - 2,
and Proverbs 19 : 23, but repenting out of contrition or genuine sorrow is
even better.
Most of the Japanese are Mahayana Buddhists and Shintoists at the same time.
The Mahayana Buddhists are the Protestants of Buddhism, as opposed to the
Theravada Buddhists, who are the Catholics of Buddhism. The Mahayana
Buddhists believe that members of the Buddhist laity, as well as members of
the Buddhist monkhood, can achieve nirvana more quickly. The Mahayana
Buddhists also tend to place greater emphasis on the sincerity of a
believer's faith, the relationship between motives and methods, and the role
of divine grace, then Theravada Buddhists do.
In 1925 universal adult male suffrage or voting rights was introduced for
national elections for the first time in the history of Japan, although by
1941 Japan had become a one-party state military dictatorship.
Since 1911, the martial art of judo, which traces its ancestry to the
samurai martial art of jujitsu, has been a compulsory subject in Japanese
schools for students above the age of 8 years, although it was banned as a
compulsory subject in Japanese schools from 1945 - 1951, after which it was
again reintroduced as a compulsory school subject from the age of 8 years
and upwards. After 1945, the requirement of all able-bodied Japanese males
over the age of 21 to do three years of compulsory military service was
abolished , although the martial arts still figure prominently in the
training of the members of Japan's voluntary Self - Defense Forces and
police force to this day. The three techniques of judo are nagewaza [
throwing ], katamewaza [ wrestling ], and atemiwaza [ punching and
kicking ]. Atemiwaza may only be taught to judokas above the rank of white
belt, and may only be used by them in training and self - defense, but never
in judo sporting contests. Katamewaza may only be used in judo sporting
contests by judokas who are at least above the age of 13. During the Second
World War, when low on bullets and food, the Japanese soldiers would often
launch a banzai bayonet charge and judo - atemiwaza attack, preferring a
heroic death to humiliating surrender.
Heinrich Himmler, the leader of the German Nazi Gestapo, who looked a bit
like Emperor Hirohito, the somewhat puppet of Premier Hideki Tojo of Japan,
the 20th Century Japanese Shogun and Temujin or Genghis Khan of Asia, once
ridiculously tried to prove that the Japanese are undercover Aryans, since
the Japanese racially mixed with the indigenous peoples of the Japanese Home
Islands, the Ainu, who once had some Caucasian - like physical features, and
that the Japanese were really Germans who physically and linguistically
separated from the Germans of the European part of the Eurasian Continent
many thousands of years ago, genetically mutating in the process in order to
adapt to their new Asian environment. Today, there are few or no Ainu
without some Japanese ancestry. The Ainu are the distant cousins of the
Eastern Finns, who arrived in Japan from northern Russia and Siberia. The
Japanese themselves are a mixture of Altaic people [ speakers of the closely
related Korean, Manchurian, Tungus, Inner Mongolian [ Chinese province ] ,
and Outer Mongolian [ Occupied by the Russian military from 1916 - 1991 ]
languages, and the Malay people ,including the Indonesians and Filipinos.
The southern Chinese, Taiwanese Chinese, and Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian
and Thai languages show a heavy Malay substratum, a result of racial mixing
between indigenous or earlier arrived people and foreign invaders .
Stephen Bayzik
news:40414...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Bravo, a breath of fresh air Sajo something which I seldom see on this
newsgroup.
Take care
--
Stephen Bayzik
Susan Cohen
"Ken Hall" <ken...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4pl440192igeqnkku...@4ax.com...
> I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the book and I don't
> understand what the brouhaha is all about.
>
> There's no doubt the New Testament says Jews killed Jesus, not the
> Romans (Pilate).
The "brouhaha" is that there is no proof any of it is true & Jews have
historically been killed for it anyway.
[snip]
> So, I don't understand this uproar about whether saying Jews killed
> Jesus is anti-Semitic. This account has been part of the Christian
> Bible for 2000 years and if it's anti-Semitic then the New Testament
> is anti-Semitic and thus Christianity itself is anti-Semitic.
Lots of people say this, actually, but Xianity in general says that sin is
responsible for Jesus' death.
That it was G-d's will that Jesus come to earth, suffer & die, etc.
But,
> whether yea or nay, it ain't new and Mel Gibson isn't the source.
He's the one cobbling this particular version to gether, using some of the
most antisemitic "sources" in particular some nun who had a real problem
with Jews....
Susan
Jan Pompe
Ken Hall wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:11:39 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ken Hall" <ken...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:4pl440192igeqnkku...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the book and I don't
>>>understand what the brouhaha is all about.
>>>
>>>There's no doubt the New Testament says Jews killed Jesus, not the
>>>Romans (Pilate).
>>
>>The "brouhaha" is that there is no proof any of it is true & Jews have
>>historically been killed for it anyway.
>
>
> Not proof for you because you don't believe the New Testament is the
> word of God.
Don't you think there might be a reason we don't believe it and that
reason is that there is no proof he existed.
> My point is that it's the entire basis of Christianity
> and therefore, for Christians, it *is* proof and has to be true.
It has to be true because Christians believe to be true! Well that's
logic for you. One could end up chasing his tails with arguments like this.
> There's no room for discussion about this.
Of course not one can't reason with blind faith.
Christians believe it and
> you don't -- this hasn't changed for almost 2000 years.
>
It's amazing how so many reasonably intelligent people could hold on to
such delusions for so long. There is a fairly high probability that it
is delusion precisely because there is no corroborative history.
Stephen Cooper
>
>
> Ken Hall wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:11:39 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Ken Hall" <ken...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4pl440192igeqnkku...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the book and I don't
>>>> understand what the brouhaha is all about.
>>>>
>>>> There's no doubt the New Testament says Jews killed Jesus, not the
>>>> Romans (Pilate).
>>>
>>>
>>> The "brouhaha" is that there is no proof any of it is true & Jews have
>>> historically been killed for it anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not proof for you because you don't believe the New Testament is the
>> word of God.
>
>
> Don't you think there might be a reason we don't believe it and that
> reason is that there is no proof he existed.
>
The reason why you don't want to believe it is because you think you
can't afford to beleive it, but the real answer is you can't afford NOT
to believe it.
Susan Cohen
> >news:4pl440192igeqnkku...@4ax.com...
> >> I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the book and I don't
> >> understand what the brouhaha is all about.
> >>
> >> There's no doubt the New Testament says Jews killed Jesus, not the
> >> Romans (Pilate).
> >
> >The "brouhaha" is that there is no proof any of it is true & Jews have
> >historically been killed for it anyway.
>
> and therefore, for Christians, it *is* proof and has to be true.
But that's circular logic.
> There's no room for discussion about this.
Depends on what you're discussing.
Christians believe it and
> you don't -- this hasn't changed for almost 2000 years.
>
> >> So, I don't understand this uproar about whether saying Jews killed
> >> Jesus is anti-Semitic. This account has been part of the Christian
> >> Bible for 2000 years and if it's anti-Semitic then the New Testament
> >> is anti-Semitic and thus Christianity itself is anti-Semitic.
> >
> >Lots of people say this, actually, but Xianity in general says that sin
is
> >responsible for Jesus' death.
> >That it was G-d's will that Jesus come to earth, suffer & die, etc.
>
> That begs the question. According to Matthew (himself a Jew),
Who did not witness anything.
Jews
> were directly responsible for Jesus' physical execution. And, I think
> that was what Gibson is dramatizing.
As well as the opinion of two writers who were not Apostles - one is St.
Anne & I forget the other one.
>
> > But,
> >> whether yea or nay, it ain't new and Mel Gibson isn't the source.
> >
> >He's the one cobbling this particular version to gether, using some of
the
> >most antisemitic "sources" in particular some nun who had a real problem
> >with Jews....
>
> I'm not sure what Gibson "cobbled" together,
He took bits and pieces of which of the four versions fit his vision, as
well as extra-bibilical writings.
but my point is the New
> Testament says very clearly and explicitly that Jews physically abused
> Jesus, called for his execution, and the Roman Governor went along
> with it reluctantly to avoid public rioting, while disavowing it at
> the same time. It's written in the Bible in the unambiguous words I
> quoted in my post. This is not a matter of opinion or up to dispute
> -- other than by saying the Christian Bible is not true/real/correct.
> And, to the extent that Gibson's movie dramatizes these events he
> isn't "cobbling this particular version together" -- it's the official
> version in the book.
No it ISN'T. It's a pieced together version of things that are scattered
throughout all four versions of it.
>
> You may not believe any of it happened, or even that Jesus existed.
> Obviously you have the right to believe what you want, but it's in
> direct conflict with the Christian Bible.
Which one?
Susan
Jan Pompe
Ken Hall wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 01:55:14 GMT, Jan Pompe <janp@!dx.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>My point is that it's the entire basis of Christianity
>>>and therefore, for Christians, it *is* proof and has to be true.
>>
>>It has to be true because Christians believe to be true! Well that's
>>logic for you.
>
>
> I think you misread my statement. I said "for Christians, it *is*
> proof and has to be true." That is, New Testament evidence *is*
> proof for Christians, and so proved must be true for them.
I havne't misread it. you have presented a circular argu ment. It is of
no value in dialectic. That the NT says that Jews were responsible for
Jesus execution does not make it true. The tragedy of this comedy is
that many thousands of Jews have died because of it.
Why did they die? Christians believed it and believed it without proof
of veracity or even historicity.
Jan Pompe
Stephen Cooper wrote:
>>
> The reason why you don't want to believe it is because you think you
> can't afford to beleive it,
Rubbish. I don't believe it because you have no proof it is real.
> but the real answer is you can't afford NOT
> to believe it.
>
I don't how anyone can afford to believe a lie.
Hey I've got a bridge to sell you- low price good income from tolls -
double as a coat hanger.
Stephen Cooper
I see it this way, if it is true, then you have a lot to answer for. If
it isn't true, then the Jews will end up disappearing off the face of
the earth.
the cockroach
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:11:39 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ken Hall" <ken...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:4pl440192igeqnkku...@4ax.com...
>>> I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the book and I don't
>>> understand what the brouhaha is all about.
>>>
>>> There's no doubt the New Testament says Jews killed Jesus, not the
>>> Romans (Pilate).
>>
>>The "brouhaha" is that there is no proof any of it is true & Jews have
>>historically been killed for it anyway.
>
> Not proof for you because you don't believe the New Testament is the
> word of God. My point is that it's the entire basis of Christianity
> and therefore, for Christians, it *is* proof and has to be true.
> There's no room for discussion about this. Christians believe it and
> you don't -- this hasn't changed for almost 2000 years.
>
>>> So, I don't understand this uproar about whether saying Jews killed
>>> Jesus is anti-Semitic. This account has been part of the Christian
>>> Bible for 2000 years and if it's anti-Semitic then the New Testament
>>> is anti-Semitic and thus Christianity itself is anti-Semitic.
>>
>>Lots of people say this, actually, but Xianity in general says that
>>sin is responsible for Jesus' death.
>>That it was G-d's will that Jesus come to earth, suffer & die, etc.
>
> That begs the question. According to Matthew (himself a Jew), Jews
> were directly responsible for Jesus' physical execution. And, I think
> that was what Gibson is dramatizing.
>
>> But,
>>> whether yea or nay, it ain't new and Mel Gibson isn't the source.
>>
>>He's the one cobbling this particular version to gether, using some of
>>the most antisemitic "sources" in particular some nun who had a real
>>problem with Jews....
>
> I'm not sure what Gibson "cobbled" together, but my point is the New
> Testament says very clearly and explicitly that Jews physically abused
> Jesus, called for his execution, and the Roman Governor went along
> with it reluctantly to avoid public rioting, while disavowing it at
> the same time. It's written in the Bible in the unambiguous words I
> quoted in my post. This is not a matter of opinion or up to dispute
> -- other than by saying the Christian Bible is not true/real/correct.
> And, to the extent that Gibson's movie dramatizes these events he
> isn't "cobbling this particular version together" -- it's the official
> version in the book.
>
> You may not believe any of it happened, or even that Jesus existed.
> Obviously you have the right to believe what you want, but it's in
> direct conflict with the Christian Bible.
no the real problem is you dont understand it. the problem with
christianity is that jesus was talking to a jewish audience and it has been
interpeted by gentils who have no idea what he meant.
of course the jews killed jesus. they had to. if they didnt there would be
no way to atone for your sins.
you would rot in hell if the jews didnt kill jesus. every day you should be
on your knees thanking the jews for killing jesus.
the jews actually were given an honour by God to kill jesus. that makes the
jews the priests of christianity. that is why they dont convert because
they are the priesthood.
since the gentiles dont understand what really happened somehow they have
twisted the jews killing jesus into something bad.
as a result it is a rallying cry of anti semitism. over the last 2000 years
million of jews have been killed as false christians use the cry of christ
killer to justify killing jews.
try christians thank the jews for killing jesus so they have a way to atone
for there sins
Adivdikator
I'll take the Vulgate any day of the week. I've studied
scripture since childhood, and St. Jerome's translation
of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic & Koine dialektos/common
Greek is the best I've read. However, your "New English"
bible is a decent English translation...each to his own.
Daniel Joseph Min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQEQdW5ljD7YrHM/nEQLcvwCg79S7xwSMEobCxwuc1UOFxdczND8AoK4L
X76LvzWyXna2AyCJEBxCX7GQ
=VoiR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Ken Hall" wrote:
>X-No-Archive: yes
>the New English Bible is considered one of
>most accurate translations.
Susan Cohen
>
> My point in posting is to say that the belief that Jews physically
> abused Jesus, called for his execution, and the Roman Governor went
> Testament. It's been taught in Christian churches for millennia and
> still is today, and if it's anti-Semitic, Mel Gibson isn't responsible
> for it, and I don't understand all the brouhaha over this movie.
Because the teaching in most churches is very different now, that all who
sin are responsible for the death of Jesus, but Mel Gibson is trying to turn
back the clock by picking & choosing among the four versions of the story,
as well as some known anti-semitic writers outside the Bible that put the
blame more squarely on the Jews.
Susan
Susan Cohen
>
> of course the jews killed jesus.
There is no "of course" because "the Jews" didn;t do it.
Even the immediate Jews accused of it did not kill him.
they had to. if they didnt there would be
> no way to atone for your sins.
Which is also your opinion.
Susan
Susan Cohen
"Adivdikator" <Adivdik...@God.Bless.America> wrote in message
> Daniel Joseph Min
stay killfiled!!!
Susan
creosote
What on Earth is "Xian?" If you mean Christian, say so.
whizbang
> Dan wrote:
> > What's a 'kill file', and how do I activate it? Regards.
> >
> >
> > " John F Lemke" <jfl...@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
> > news:YaKdnd-2LdQ...@locallink.net...
> >>
> >> "Dan" <twotri...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:xW0%b.617088$ts4.196835@pd7tw3no...
> >>> Oh just shut the fuck up already!
> >>
> >> Uhoh, Dan, now your in Mr. Min's kill file. That's why he doesn't
> >> ever see anyone else's opinion more than once. He doesn't like
> >> people who take that tone with him.
>
>
> Youhave OE, so to killfile someone do the following:
>
> Go to the toolbar and click on Messages.
> Look down the list and click on 'block sender'. This will effectivly block
> his posts to the news group.You will probably have to do it for each ng he
> posts to.
>
> You can also use rules to effectively limit people as well -you define the
> rules as you wish..
> Click on Tools on the toolbar and click Message rules.It will take you
> there. It is very easy to use.
> Hope this helps.
>
> Tilly
I wonder why these options appear in Outlook Express, which on my
computer has no effect on the newsgroups, but do not appear under
tools when you are at an ng, itself? I tried blocking a certain
person at one of my email addresses in OE, but it had no effect on the
person's posts on Usenet.
Jan Pompe
Ken Hall wrote:
> You seem to be intent on misrepresenting what I'm saying. I know it
> doesn't make it true for you, but it makes it true for Christians.
> You believe one thing, Christians believe another.
>
> My point in posting is to say that the belief that Jews physically
> abused Jesus, called for his execution, and the Roman Governor went
> along with it reluctantly to avoid public rioting is as old as the New
> Testament. It's been taught in Christian churches for millennia and
> still is today, and if it's anti-Semitic, Mel Gibson isn't responsible
> for it, and I don't understand all the brouhaha over this movie.
>
Of course you don't understand it your people were doing the persecuting
and you see it as perfectly normal thing to do.
We on the other hand are not prepared to tolerate it any longer.
Do you think it reasonable if all women who step mothers were persecuted
because large numbers of folks thought that Cinderella or Snow White
were true?
Jan Pompe
It's not what Torah says.
moshe
******************
"The Jews" are not portrayed as some monolithic group of people.
In the movie, just as in the Gospels, the heroes were Jewish and many
of the villains were Jewish, showing a spiritual civil war *within*
the Jewish community.
It is people like *you* today who claim that Jewish followers of Jesus
were/are no longer Jews, who take away the Jewish identity of the
heroes of the Gospel, leaving a Jewish identity only for the villains.
- moshe
Stephen Cooper
It IS in the TNK.
Amos 7:8-9
8 And the LORD said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A
plumbline. Then said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumbline in the
midst of my people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more:
9 And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries
of Israel shall be laid waste; and I will rise against the house of
Jeroboam with the sword.
Jan Pompe
It refers to the Northern Kingdom do you not know who Jeroboam was?
Of course it has a happy ending
Amos 9:13 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall
overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and
the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. 14
And I will turn the captivity of My people Israel, and they shall build
the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and
drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit
of them. 15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no
more be plucked up out of their land which I have given them, saith the
LORD thy God.
You stop reading to soon.
Susan Cohen
"Stephen Cooper" <nupre...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:4qI0c.4502$PY.2362@lakeread05...
> Jan Pompe wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Stephen Cooper wrote:
> >
> >> Jan Pompe wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Stephen Cooper wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> The reason why you don't want to believe it is because you think you
> >>>> can't afford to beleive it,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Rubbish. I don't believe it because you have no proof it is real.
> >>>
> >>>> but the real answer is you can't afford NOT to believe it.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't how anyone can afford to believe a lie.
> >>>
> >>> Hey I've got a bridge to sell you- low price good income from tolls -
> >>> double as a coat hanger.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I see it this way, if it is true, then you have a lot to answer for.
> >> If it isn't true, then the Jews will end up disappearing off the face
> >> of the earth.
> >>
> > It's not what Torah says.
> >
>
> It IS in the TNK.
No, it isn't.
You are incorrect as to what this means.
Looking back through the Torah to pretend that everything presages Jesus is
*not* "proof* of anything but your desire that everything in the Torah
presages Jesus.
Ssuan
Susan Cohen
"moshe" <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40f21e75.04030...@posting.google.com...
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<DbB0c.13760$C65....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> > "Ken Hall" <ken...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:31c540dd59hm44qhv...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > My point in posting is to say that the belief that Jews physically
> > > abused Jesus, called for his execution, and the Roman Governor went
> > > along with it reluctantly to avoid public rioting is as old as the New
> > > Testament. It's been taught in Christian churches for millennia and
> > > still is today, and if it's anti-Semitic, Mel Gibson isn't responsible
> > > for it, and I don't understand all the brouhaha over this movie.
> >
> > Because the teaching in most churches is very different now, that all
who
> > sin are responsible for the death of Jesus, but Mel Gibson is trying to
turn
> > back the clock by picking & choosing among the four versions of the
story,
> > as well as some known anti-semitic writers outside the Bible that put
the
> > blame more squarely on the Jews.
> >
>
> "The Jews" are not portrayed as some monolithic group of people.
The areligious statement "his blood be upon us & our children" is spoken in
the movie.
>
> In the movie, just as in the Gospels, the heroes were Jewish and many
> of the villains were Jewish,
But since this designation is being made from a heretical standpoint, it
turns any possible history on its head.
> showing a spiritual civil war *within*
> the Jewish community.
Which is another misrepresentation of the facts.
>
> It is people like *you* today who claim that Jewish followers of Jesus
> were/are no longer Jews,
As usual, you lie.
I have always only said that Xianity is not Judaism.
> who take away the Jewish identity
Another lie.
of the
> heroes of the Gospel,
But they are not heroes, they are apostates.
If they existed at all.
> leaving a Jewish identity only for the villains.
I'm not the one making the stupid claim that Judaism teaches in inhderited
guilt.
Susan
moshe
*******************
That statement is not made by all Jews, only by some Jews.
Even for that small group that say it, it is counter-acted by Jesus'
statement, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".
****************
...
> I'm not the one making the stupid claim that Judaism teaches in inhderited
> guilt.
******************
I am not preaching an inherited guilt, either.
Each person is responsible for his own acceptance or rejection of
Jesus.
Nobody is responsible for how his parents accepted or rejected Jesus.
- moshe
Susan Cohen
Yawn.
>
> Even for that small group that say it, it is counter-acted by Jesus'
> statement, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".
No such thing.
Even if it happened, it would be a freak statement that not only has no
force, but doesn't even need countering, much less by someone with no power
to do it.
>
> ****************
>
> ...
>
> > I'm not the one making the stupid claim that Judaism teaches in
inherited
> > guilt.
>
> ******************
>
> I am not preaching an inherited guilt, either.
Yes, you are.
It's in your scripture & that movie you like so much.
>
> Each person is responsible for his own acceptance or rejection of
> Jesus.
And responsible for our rejection of the little man behind the curtain as
well.
Susan
Susan Cohen
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 05:30:31 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Each person is responsible for his own acceptance or rejection of
> >> Jesus.
> >
> >And responsible for our rejection of the little man behind the curtain as
> >well.
>
> Abraham?
He is not "a man behind a curtain",
> Do you reject him too?
No (no matter what He gets called).
But neither do I run around insisting that everyone else has to believe in
Him, either.
>
> If not, it seems like you're being pretty arbitrary in what you accept
> and reject.
Not at all.
If I accept the former, I cannot accept the latter.
Susan
Dan
"creosote" wrote;
>
>
> What on Earth is "Xian?" If you mean Christian, say so.
It's the way atheists and other anti-christians like to speak. It
stems from a deep-seated fear of writing 'Christ'; the same way
they would violently recoil from crucifixes flashed in their
faces, holy water sprinkled on them, etc.
Dan
the cockroach
news:bVO1c.667275$JQ1.597053@pd7tw1no:
which is odd because i was always taught it was a term of respest. the way
you say xmas instead of christmas or the jews write G-d
Jan Pompe
X=Chi an abreviation for 'christos' it's an abreviation that is all.
Waco Agent
>"Dan" <twotri...@shaw.ca> wrote in
>news:bVO1c.667275$JQ1.597053@pd7tw1no:
>
>>
>> "creosote" wrote;
>>>
>>>
>>> What on Earth is "Xian?" If you mean Christian, say so.
>>
>> It's the way atheists and other anti-christians like to speak. It
>> stems from a deep-seated fear of writing 'Christ'; the same way
>> they would violently recoil from crucifixes flashed in their
>> faces, holy water sprinkled on them, etc.
>>
>
>which is odd because i was always taught it was a term of respest. the way
>you say xmas instead of christmas or the jews write G-d
X is the first letter of the Greek word Christos.The Romans and the
Pharisees changed the true cross the tee shape one. X is Christ.. make
no mistake about it.The Christianity of today is a perversion of
Jesus' message, peace be upon him.
The early Christians hated these people ... and still do!
X98
Susan Cohen
> "Dan" <twotri...@shaw.ca> wrote in
> news:bVO1c.667275$JQ1.597053@pd7tw1no:
>
> >
> > "creosote" wrote;
> >>
> >>
> >> What on Earth is "Xian?" If you mean Christian, say so.
> >
> > It's the way atheists and other anti-christians like to speak.
It is also an invention of Xians themselves.
It
> > stems from a deep-seated fear of writing 'Christ'; the same way
> > they would violently recoil from crucifixes flashed in their
> > faces, holy water sprinkled on them, etc.
Only in the sick imaginations of stupid bigots like this.
> >
>
> which is odd because i was always taught it was a term of respest. the way
> you say xmas instead of christmas
Yeah, funny, that!! They write it themsleves!
But that was never a mark of respect; just an abbreviation from the Greek.
> or the jews write G-d
I don't write it out because the word "christ" means something that I do not
believe in conjunction with Jesus.
Susan
Susan Cohen
"Jan Pompe" <ja...@idx.com.au> wrote in message
news:dc19e579.04030...@posting.google.com...
You realize that you're talking to a whacko....?
Susan
Wheeljak
said in writing:
>
>"moshe" <joes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:40f21e75.04030...@posting.google.com...
>> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:<DbB0c.13760$C65....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>> > "Ken Hall" <ken...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:31c540dd59hm44qhv...@4ax.com...
>The areligious statement "his blood be upon us & our children" is spoken in
>the movie.
From a purely Christian standpoint, His blood being upon someone is a
blessing-- not a curse.
Susan Cohen
"Wheeljak" <opt...@prime.net> wrote in message
news:08km40972f3ocqt64...@4ax.com...
Which is not how it is meant either in the movie or the source material.
Susan
the cockroach
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Religion is violence
By HILLEL GOLDBERG IJN Executive Editor
We may now put aside the hype, the buzz, the anticipatory critique and
anticipatory celebration. Any- one may see Mel Gibson's movie and judge for
himself.
I saw it Monday night at a preview.
I was deeply offended. The movie's portraits seem to be equal opportunity
disfigurations. While the Romans will not defend themselves against
Gibson's portrayal because they are no longer here, Jews and at least some
Christians will need to.
Did I say, Jews and Christians? I did.
First, fair is fair. Put aside religion and history and language. The movie
is a technical masterpiece. There is no lead-in to this movie, no soft
music with alluring shots, overscripted with actors' credits, to put the
viewer in the mood. The movie begins with the first image that hits the
screen -- at a high level of intensity. That intensity, sustained by the
music, the cinematography, the sheer black-and-white, good vs. evil moral
set, never decreases, through the last scene.
But, of course, it is impossible to view or judge this movie on technical
grounds alone. A movie aspiring to attest to a historical and a religious
truth must be judged on how well it meets that high standard. Accuracy is a
necessity.
There were Jews in the movie. But nothing recognizably Jewish about them.
On the technical level, aside from a brief shot of a few people draped in
what might be a tallis, I saw not one Jewish artifact, heard (from the
mouths of the Jews) not one line from the Torah or the Mishnah, including
its code of criminal law, and saw not a single Jewish ritual (observed by
Jews). I saw inaccuracies, such as Jewish Temple priests dressed in
costumes very different from the actual priestly vestments, whose colors,
size and number are easily accessible. I saw these Jewish priests, some
with hooked noses and all with hateful countenances and blood-lust pouring
insistently from their mouths.
Just in case the viewer did not grasp the character of the Jews in Jesus'
time from the portrayal of the elders, they are surrounded by howling and
cackling Jewish mobs. Gibson has not only the elders, but the entire mob of
Jews crying out to the Roman governor, "Crucify him!""
The Roman governor is pictured as reluctant to act on the Jews' screaming
for blood. The Roman governor is pictured as instinctively bent on mercy,
yielding to the Jews' desire for the jugular to avert a popular uprising.
Two individual acts of kindness to Jesus, done apparently by Jews during
Jesus' march to his death, have no impact on the overwhelmingly poisonous
portrayal of the Jews of the time.
In Mel Gibson's vision, the Roman leadership was compassionate; it did not
want Jesus tortured and killed. The leadership was pushed into the
crucifixion by the Jews. The leadership acted only to pacify the Jews,
pictured as thirsting for Jesus' murder as a false messiah. Not just the
priests but all the Jews of the time are presented as insanely jealous for
Jesus' blood.
In all this, astonishingly, it is not the Jews who come off worst in this
movie, vile and hateful though they are portrayed to be. By this I refer
not only to the Roman torturers of Jesus, pictured as vicious sadists
gleefully enjoying themselves. I refer also to religion, as seen through
Mel Gibson's eyes.
I make no comment here about Christianity pe se. I know little about its
origin and scriptures. My comments are only about Christianity as portrayed
in this movie. What follows is a description of a movie's religion; others
more knowledgeable than I about Christianity will have to measure the
extent to which the real religion matches the movie's.
Mel Gibson's religion is violence. His is a religion founded on a murder,
soaked in blood, fascinated by brutality, obsessed with violence. Jesus is
pictured in this movie beaten so ferociously, so repeatedly, with such a
variety of brutal weapons, that no person could ever withstand even the
first fifth of these attacks; he would die. Most unrealistically, Gibson
has his Jesus survive fatal blows time and again, only to be attacked and
whipped and chain-beaten still more. Mel Gibson's religion is blood lust,
with religious heights rising in proportion to the infliction of physical
pain.
Oddly, in occasional cut-away shots, Jesus is pictured in earlier periods
preaching love and forgiveness; and on the cross he is also pictured
preaching forgiveness. I say this appears odd because Gibson's words pale
before his relentless pictures of violence. In scene after scene of blood
and gore, of cruelty and torture, Gibson projects his religion. His
creativity in inventing new visual angles on and methods of the same simple
motif -- torturing a person to death -- speaks volumes. His theological
message is perfectly clear: The nexus of religion is violence: how to
prompt it, how to absorb it, how to respond to it. His words about love are
but rivulets in a flood of blood.
Then, in a stylized shock, Jesus' mother insists on watching all this, duly
horrified of course, but strangely composed, strangely in control of her
wits, always able and willing to witness the next scene of brutality
wrought upon her son. Ironically, it is Jesus' mother who conveys the link
between religion and violence even more than the Romans ferocious beatings
of her son -- even more than her son's rasping, wincing, groaning and
crying under the blows. Jesus' mother must watch. She must see the
violence. She must be there. She does not faint. She does not run away. She
does not cry herself to madness. Rather, she peers at the bloodletting.
Also stylized, and contradictory, is Gibson's portrayal of Jesus's body. In
Gibson's portrayal of Jesus' torture -- the great bulk of the film --
Gibson draws on Western art's most violent images of the event. Then, after
Jesus' mother and followers take him down from the cross, he is momentarily
posed on his mother's lap in a way that draws on a very different image in
Western art, the calm of Michelangelo's pieta. Jesus' bloodied, indeed
shredded, body is suddenly, and incongruously, smooth -- as if Gibson were
ashamed of the religion of violence he has perpetrated on the viewers.
Or, perhaps, the moment simply isn't important to Gibson. In stark contrast
to Jesus' torture, which is graphic in the extreme and untenably stretched
out, the movie ends with an extremely quick resurrection scene, vague and
metaphorical. A few white sheets move. In Gibson's religion, there is no
burial of Jesus, no visible resurrection, and no one there. Gibson's focus
is mayhem.
A word on language: The movie is in English subtitles, with the spoken
languages of the actors being Aramaic (the language of ancient Palestine)
and Latin (the language of the Roman occupiers).
In fact, the Aramaic is occasionally interspersed with Hebrew -- but only
when Jesus is speaking. Some of Jesus' Hebrew consists of phrases from the
biblical book of Psalms. However, I recall no Hebrew phrases spoken by any
of the Jews in the film. This is, of course, a bias that few will pick up,
as I assume that most viewers understand neither Hebrew nor Aramaic. But
the bias, nonetheless, is telling. The faith in, and mercy of, G-d that
permeate the Psalms are articulated by Jesus alone; in Gibson's history,
the Jews of the time know no Psalms! Besides being unrealistic, this
accentuates the black-and-white, all-Jews-of-the-time- were-bloodthirsty
script.
I found it odd that in a line of credits that included scores, perhaps
hundreds, of people, I spotted only a single person, a Catholic priest with
a PhD, credited with the supplying the movie's Aramaic. One would have
thought that such a critical aspect of the film -- virtually every word
uttered by every person in the film save the Romans -- would have required
more than one scholar. Did he think that only Jesus, not the believers in
the Hebrew Bible, knew the Hebrew Bible?
Will this film cause anti-Semitism?
Surely, there is anti-Semitic material in the film. The unmitigated hatred
by the Jews, not just their leaders, is emphasized time and again. These
symbols have certainly prompted persecution of the Jews in the past. Will
this happen now? If so, we'll all know. If not, it will be because the
hatred of the Jews is portrayed in such overwrought, overdrawn caricature
that people will see through it. Or, in an inverse perversion of tolerance,
people will say, "It is definitive. The Jews did it. Now that it's proven,
let them be. The spiritually impoverished are no longer killed; they are
pitied."
Then again, will this film cause anti-Christian sentiment?
This is not the question that the pre-release hype asked. The fact remains,
however, that Christianity, though so much more populous than Judaism,
remains a minority among the world's religions. If this movie was designed
to be, or is used as, a missionary tool, it might backfire. Its fundamental
message -- the nexus of religion is violence -- offers little hope.
Certainly, there is precious little love spoken in this film. I may be
wrong, but something tells me that this film will not be received as the
great portrait of mercy and forgiveness that its creator apparently thinks
it is.
Libertarius
guilty of two errors:
1. Who killed Jesus, and
2. Why they killed Jesus.
Libertarius
the cockroach wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> Religion is violence
> By HILLEL GOLDBERG IJN Executive Editor
"Executive Editor" of WHAT???
You ought to give better credit to the author of such an
EXCELLENT REVIEW! -- L.
A Mensch should give better citations.
the cockroach
news:404D06B6.88FC808A@Nothing_But_The.Truth:
> His Hallywood Fiction is his own version of the "gospel",
> guilty of two errors:
>
> 1. Who killed Jesus,
it was suicide. the modern term is suicide by police
and
> 2. Why they killed Jesus.
>
it was needed so christians wouldnt rot in hell.
>
--
____________________________
good readers read the lines
and better readers read
the spaces
The Tidewater Tales
John Barth
____________________________
the cockroach
news:404D0AC3.87132E6F@Nothing_But_The.Truth:
>
>
> the cockroach wrote:
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----- -----
>>
>> Religion is violence
>> By HILLEL GOLDBERG IJN Executive Editor
>
> "Executive Editor" of WHAT???
> You ought to give better credit to the author of such an
> EXCELLENT REVIEW! -- L.
>
look at the entire line
IJN
ok
check it more at
--
moshe
...
> > I am not preaching an inherited guilt, either.
>
> Yes, you are.
> It's in your scripture & that movie you like so much.
************
Where is inherited guilt preached in the New Testament and in that
movie?
That group that chanted about guilt being upon themselves and upon
their children was making an unscriptural claim.
God does not enforce unBiblical claims.
There is no such thing as inherited guilt.
Each person is guilty of his own sins.
A son is only guilty if he himself sins, not because his father
sinned.
Your father is guilty of his own rejection of Jesus.
You are guilty of your own rejection of Jesus.
If guilt were inherited, then I would be guilty of my ancestors'
rejection of Jesus.
But God says that guilt is *not* inherited.
- moshe
Emma
>
>"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:<XZU0c.22466$C65....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>
>...
>
>> > I am not preaching an inherited guilt, either.
>>
>> Yes, you are.
>> It's in your scripture & that movie you like so much.
>
>************
>
>Where is inherited guilt preached in the New Testament and in that
>movie?
>
>That group that chanted about guilt being upon themselves and upon
>their children was making an unscriptural claim.
>God does not enforce unBiblical claims.
>There is no such thing as inherited guilt.
I agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that
anyone today can be guilty of killing Jesus,
but as to whether or not the NT teaches inherited
sin.... well, what is original sin?
Michael Cecil (28SW2)
> Religion is violence
> By HILLEL GOLDBERG IJN Executive Editor
Probably one of the best analyses I have read on alt.messianic
about this movie. But what is he the executive editor of?
I would like to convey to him my appreciation.
> We may now put aside the hype, the buzz, the anticipatory critique and
> anticipatory celebration. Any- one may see Mel Gibson's movie and judge for
> himself.
No thanks. Not even with a free ticket.
> I saw it Monday night at a preview.
>
> I was deeply offended.
Which indicates that you at least have a shred of humanity remaining.
> The movie's portraits seem to be equal opportunity
> disfigurations. While the Romans will not defend themselves against
> Gibson's portrayal because they are no longer here
Sure they are. Look around. They call themselves Christians of
the Roman church and others.
> , Jews and at least some
> Christians will need to.
>
> Did I say, Jews and Christians? I did.
>
> First, fair is fair. Put aside religion and history and language.
Especially history; for example, historical context for the conflict between
Jesus and the Jewish priesthood.
The movie
> is a technical masterpiece. There is no lead-in to this movie, no soft
> music with alluring shots, overscripted with actors' credits, to put the
> viewer in the mood. The movie begins with the first image that hits the
> screen -- at a high level of intensity. That intensity, sustained by the
> music, the cinematography, the sheer black-and-white, good vs. evil moral
> set, never decreases, through the last scene.
>
> But, of course, it is impossible to view or judge this movie on technical
> grounds alone. A movie aspiring to attest to a historical and a religious
> truth
Truth is the last thing this movie attempts to convey.
The decision was made to set in stone the belief in the Christian doctrine
of 'vicarious atonement'. This was not done through a logical argument
but by side-stepping the intellect entirely and going directly to images
and emotions to 'validate' this doctrine. In short, it is propaganda adhering
to the most stringent guidelines of Goebbels.
It is not any beginning of a discussion but an conversation stopper.
> must be judged on how well it meets that high standard. Accuracy is a
> necessity.
The *reason* for the crucifixion is, of course, never even hinted at--that
Jesus contradicted the teaching of the Jewish priesthood about the
doctrine of a physical resurrection from the grave; asserting that it is,
instead, a Doctrine of Rebirth.
> There were Jews in the movie. But nothing recognizably Jewish about them.
> On the technical level, aside from a brief shot of a few people draped in
> what might be a tallis, I saw not one Jewish artifact, heard (from the
> mouths of the Jews) not one line from the Torah or the Mishnah, including
> its code of criminal law, and saw not a single Jewish ritual (observed by
> Jews). I saw inaccuracies, such as Jewish Temple priests dressed in
> costumes very different from the actual priestly vestments, whose colors,
> size and number are easily accessible. I saw these Jewish priests, some
> with hooked noses and all with hateful countenances and blood-lust pouring
> insistently from their mouths.
Forget the hooked noses and costumes. Problem is there was NO historical
context for why they hated Jesus...leaving the impression that they hated
him for NO reason at all; except, of course, that they were EVIL.
> Just in case the viewer did not grasp the character of the Jews in Jesus'
> time from the portrayal of the elders, they are surrounded by howling and
> cackling Jewish mobs. Gibson has not only the elders, but the entire mob of
> Jews crying out to the Roman governor, "Crucify him!""
Really not all that different than Christians today screaming "Jesus died
for your sins."
> The Roman governor is pictured as reluctant to act on the Jews' screaming
> for blood. The Roman governor is pictured as instinctively bent on mercy,
> yielding to the Jews' desire for the jugular to avert a popular uprising.
> Two individual acts of kindness to Jesus, done apparently by Jews during
> Jesus' march to his death, have no impact on the overwhelmingly poisonous
> portrayal of the Jews of the time.
>
> In Mel Gibson's vision, the Roman leadership was compassionate; it did not
> want Jesus tortured and killed. The leadership was pushed into the
> crucifixion by the Jews. The leadership acted only to pacify the Jews,
> pictured as thirsting for Jesus' murder as a false messiah.
Sure. This is what the Christian religious officials want you to believe.
Were the Doctrinal nature of this conflict made known, it would readily be
seen that the Christian theologians teach the same nonsense about the
'resurrection' taught by the Pharisees.
> Not just the
> priests but all the Jews of the time are presented as insanely jealous for
> Jesus' blood.
The problem I have is that, today, *Christians* are "insanely jealous" for
the blood of Jesus because of 'vicarious atonement'. This is a PRESENT
evil; not something that happened 2000 years ago.
> In all this, astonishingly, it is not the Jews who come off worst in this
> movie, vile and hateful though they are portrayed to be. By this I refer
> not only to the Roman torturers of Jesus, pictured as vicious sadists
> gleefully enjoying themselves. I refer also to religion, as seen through
> Mel Gibson's eyes.
>
> I make no comment here about Christianity pe se. I know little about its
> origin and scriptures.
Then you should educate yourself, especially in the position that you
hold.
The origin of Christian theology--in Paul's Pharisaic doctrine of a physical
resurrection and other pagan doctrines--is the origin of Naziism.
> My comments are only about Christianity as portrayed
> in this movie. What follows is a description of a movie's religion; others
> more knowledgeable than I about Christianity will have to measure the
> extent to which the real religion matches the movie's.
The movie graphically represents archetypal Christianity, which is the
doctrine of 'vicarious atonement'. It is a necessary element in the
psychopathic, Satanic cult of Christian torture- and death-worship. The
liberals merely place a "smiley face" on the same doctrine.
> Mel Gibson's religion is violence.
Or Satanism and the psychopathic.
> His is a religion founded on a murder,
For NO explainable reason.
> soaked in blood, fascinated by brutality, obsessed with violence.
BINGO.
> Jesus is
> pictured in this movie beaten so ferociously, so repeatedly, with such a
> variety of brutal weapons, that no person could ever withstand even the
> first fifth of these attacks; he would die. Most unrealistically, Gibson
> has his Jesus survive fatal blows time and again, only to be attacked and
> whipped and chain-beaten still more. Mel Gibson's religion is blood lust,
> with religious heights rising in proportion to the infliction of physical
> pain.
Christians should be going into ECSTASY watching a depiction of this
torture. After all, this is their ticket into HEAVEN.
> Oddly, in occasional cut-away shots, Jesus is pictured in earlier periods
> preaching love and forgiveness; and on the cross he is also pictured
> preaching forgiveness. I say this appears odd because Gibson's words pale
> before his relentless pictures of violence. In scene after scene of blood
> and gore, of cruelty and torture, Gibson projects his religion.
It always used to amaze me to think how the Holocaust was even possible.
How could it have happened?
When I see the faces of the people who have seen this movie--they are
SMILING (or they talk in giddy anticipation of seeing this movie)--it all
of a sudden becomes clear to me how the Holocaust happened.
These Christians are THRILLED at this violence. They smile; they enjoy
it. They were thoroughly entertained by it. It makes them feel so HOLY;
and anyone who does not believe what they believe are thought to be
certainly EVIL.
> His
> creativity in inventing new visual angles on and methods of the same simple
> motif -- torturing a person to death -- speaks volumes. His theological
> message is perfectly clear: The nexus of religion is violence: how to
> prompt it, how to absorb it, how to respond to it. His words about love are
> but rivulets in a flood of blood.
>
> Then, in a stylized shock, Jesus' mother insists on watching all this, duly
> horrified of course, but strangely composed, strangely in control of her
> wits, always able and willing to witness the next scene of brutality
> wrought upon her son.
I have seen young Catholic mothers--delicate, dainty, beautiful and sexy--
talking about having seen this movie. They smile with their jaws jutting out
and their chests protruding in self-righteous glee over the extreme torture
that 'God' 'Himself' went through to get their sorry asses into heaven.
They are hard-hearted but demure; and UGLY. Incredibly ugly.
And they are in NO mood to discuss another interpretation of what
is going on in the movie.
> Ironically, it is Jesus' mother who conveys the link
> between religion and violence even more than the Romans ferocious beatings
> of her son -- even more than her son's rasping, wincing, groaning and
> crying under the blows. Jesus' mother must watch. She must see the
> violence. She must be there. She does not faint. She does not run away. She
> does not cry herself to madness. Rather, she peers at the bloodletting.
Deep psychopathology. Almost an agreement with it because, of course,
his mother wants to get to heaven as well. (Look, you poor son of a bitch.
You have to go through this, though my son, because *I* need to get into
heaven. You DO want me to go to heaven, don't you?)
> Also stylized, and contradictory, is Gibson's portrayal of Jesus's body. In
> Gibson's portrayal of Jesus' torture -- the great bulk of the film --
> Gibson draws on Western art's most violent images of the event. Then, after
> Jesus' mother and followers take him down from the cross, he is momentarily
> posed on his mother's lap in a way that draws on a very different image in
> Western art, the calm of Michelangelo's pieta. Jesus' bloodied, indeed
> shredded, body is suddenly, and incongruously, smooth -- as if Gibson were
> ashamed of the religion of violence he has perpetrated on the viewers.
>
> Or, perhaps, the moment simply isn't important to Gibson. In stark contrast
> to Jesus' torture, which is graphic in the extreme and untenably stretched
> out, the movie ends with an extremely quick resurrection scene, vague and
> metaphorical. A few white sheets move. In Gibson's religion, there is no
> burial of Jesus, no visible resurrection, and no one there. Gibson's focus
> is mayhem.
As is the focus of ALL Satanists.
> A word on language: The movie is in English subtitles, with the spoken
> languages of the actors being Aramaic (the language of ancient Palestine)
> and Latin (the language of the Roman occupiers).
>
> In fact, the Aramaic is occasionally interspersed with Hebrew -- but only
> when Jesus is speaking. Some of Jesus' Hebrew consists of phrases from the
> biblical book of Psalms. However, I recall no Hebrew phrases spoken by any
> of the Jews in the film. This is, of course, a bias that few will pick up,
> as I assume that most viewers understand neither Hebrew nor Aramaic. But
> the bias, nonetheless, is telling. The faith in, and mercy of, G-d that
> permeate the Psalms are articulated by Jesus alone; in Gibson's history,
> the Jews of the time know no Psalms! Besides being unrealistic, this
> accentuates the black-and-white, all-Jews-of-the-time- were-bloodthirsty
> script.
Even worse, the intent of the images on the screen is to completely
OVERRIDE any language or meaning. What is important here is
PICTURE and EMOTION. In other words, DO NOT THINK. Just drink
in the images of this torture and DON'T question Christian doctrine.
Jesus died for your sins. No doubt about it. Thou shalt not question.
Later you can think about this but not for the purpose of considering
any other point of view. Now these images have made CERTAIN your
belief in this nonsense.
> I found it odd that in a line of credits that included scores, perhaps
> hundreds, of people, I spotted only a single person, a Catholic priest with
> a PhD, credited with the supplying the movie's Aramaic. One would have
> thought that such a critical aspect of the film -- virtually every word
> uttered by every person in the film save the Romans -- would have required
> more than one scholar. Did he think that only Jesus, not the believers in
> the Hebrew Bible, knew the Hebrew Bible?
>
> Will this film cause anti-Semitism?
The film is much deeper than anti-Semitic.
It is the visual propagandizing of the doctrine which ORIGINATED
anti-Semitism.
Forget anti-Semitism. The problem is at the level of the Satanic and
the diabolical and the psychopathic: the worship of evil and suffering.
> Surely, there is anti-Semitic material in the film. The unmitigated hatred
> by the Jews, not just their leaders, is emphasized time and again. These
> symbols have certainly prompted persecution of the Jews in the past. Will
> this happen now? If so, we'll all know. If not, it will be because the
> hatred of the Jews is portrayed in such overwrought, overdrawn caricature
> that people will see through it. Or, in an inverse perversion of tolerance,
> people will say, "It is definitive. The Jews did it. Now that it's proven,
> let them be. The spiritually impoverished are no longer killed; they are
> pitied."
This does not work.
The Christian duality necessitates that those who do not believe will not
be 'saved'. Those who are not 'saved' are EVIL. Those who are EVIL--
Jews and Muslims--will go to hell for ETERNITY. If they deserve to be
punished in HELL for ETERNITY by GOD, there is NO good reason that
they cannot be persecuted, hunted down, tortured and slaughtered in
THIS world. In fact, those who torture and kill such 'nonbelievers' are,
in fact, doing the Will of 'God' 'Himself'.
This is the psychopathic mentality that made the Holocaust possible.
> Then again, will this film cause anti-Christian sentiment?
If we're lucky.
But it CERTAINLY would not be the fault of the media.
The media will allow NO contradiction of the Christian doctrine of
'vicarious atonement'. The media has completely censored and
suppressed any alternative explanation for the crucifxion and has
become nothing more than a mouthpiece of the Satanists.
> This is not the question that the pre-release hype asked. The fact remains,
> however, that Christianity, though so much more populous than Judaism,
> remains a minority among the world's religions. If this movie was designed
> to be, or is used as, a missionary tool, it might backfire.
We can only pray that such ugly perversity will begin to open people's
eyes to just how bizarre and psychopathic is this whole belief in a cult
of death and suffering and the fundamental Satanism of the doctrine
of 'vicarious atonement' itself.
> Its fundamental
> message -- the nexus of religion is violence -- offers little hope.
> Certainly, there is precious little love spoken in this film. I may be
> wrong, but something tells me that this film will not be received as the
> great portrait of mercy and forgiveness that its creator apparently thinks
> it is.
Strange, how firmly holding on to a belief can completely insulate a
person from the reality of what he is doing or seeing.
Christians really believe they are being HOLY by going to see a graphic
representation of Jesus being TORTURED to death.
I suppose I should just be thankful that Jesus was not a woman who
was raped and tortured to death by Roman soldiers as a 'vicarious
atonement' for the sins of the Christians.
Then the Christians would be singing the praises of violent sexual
pornography...
Not merely the sacredness of a snuff film.
Michael Cecil
Libertarius
moshe wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<XZU0c.22466$C65....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>
> ...
>
> > > I am not preaching an inherited guilt, either.
> >
> > Yes, you are.
> > It's in your scripture & that movie you like so much.
>
> ************
>
> Where is inherited guilt preached in the New Testament and in that
> movie?
===>That is the basis of Pauline Christianity.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world,
and death through sin,
and so death spread to all men,
because all sinned-- AND
Ephesians 2:3
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh,
indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind,
and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
Actually contradicting Deuteronomy 24:16
"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons,
nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers;
everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
However, the basis of Christianity IS substitute
atonement, teaching that the incarnate savior god
CHRISTOS was "put to death" for the sins of not
only his own fathers but for the sins of all humanity!
The Pauline teaching IS the transferability of "sin"
(and therefore "guilt"), and, of course, those verses
were written by some Pauline disciple who believed
it. -- L.
Mark Johnson
>> Religion is violence
>> By HILLEL GOLDBERG IJN Executive Editor
>> The movie's portraits seem to be equal opportunity
>> disfigurations. While the Romans will not defend themselves against
>> Gibson's portrayal because they are no longer here
If Caesar still ruled? Would there even be a rabbi? It was the Romans
that created the 'diaspora'. The leveled the Second Temple. And this
was a society known for persecutions.
>> Did I say, Jews and Christians? I did.
>Especially history; for example, historical context for the conflict between
>Jesus and the Jewish priesthood.
Between God and The Temple. Get it right.
It's no different, today. Everything old is new again. Our Lord
destroyed The Temple. He remade it as The Catholic Church. But it's
the Catholic Church, as least clerics in the institutional church, if
not the faithful remnant, who contemn God and His Church, as the
Temple leadership turned on God. The current Temple, the institutional
church, is just as corrupt as the Second Temple in Our Lord's time.
>> music, the cinematography, the sheer black-and-white, good vs. evil moral
>> set
That's how it is with good n evil. The evil folk certainly see it as
black n white. Ever heard of political correctness?
>> But, of course, it is impossible to view or judge this movie on technical
>> grounds alone. A movie aspiring to attest to a historical and a religious
>> truth
>Truth is the last thing this movie attempts to convey.
It's exactly what you see.
>The decision was made to set in stone the belief in the Christian doctrine
>of 'vicarious atonement'.
That decision was made by God, the great promised Messiah, Our Lord,
and Saviour, Jesus Christ. That was done - around 2000 years ago. It
was Atonement, period. Call it 'vicarious' or whatever else you want.
>This was not done through a logical argument
>but by side-stepping the intellect entirely and going directly to images
>and emotions to 'validate' this doctrine.
The doctrine is historical fact.
>In short, it is propaganda adhering
>to the most stringent guidelines of Goebbels.
No, that's the national 'news', as PR flacks for Democrats. They
follow Goebbels. Gibson was telling the story of The Passion.
>The *reason* for the crucifixion is, of course, never even hinted at
Yeah - it's explicitly laid out for you. Blasphemy they scream. Then
when they appear before Pilate, he says - what do I care? And then
they come up with - insurrectionist! So they change their story. And
what's worse - Pilate still says, what do I care?
The irony, the black humor of God in this, is that Barrabus is just
this sort, that the priests are eager to release because they just so
want Our Lord's Blood on their hands. But Pilate declared God
Innocent. Not so God's Own priests.
Mmmm?
Just the facts. And again, as the institutional church as temple,
history is repeating itself. If Our Lord came as Suffering Messiah, a
second time, I'm pretty sure the host of 'catholic' bishops would want
Him killed. But it's not going to happen a second time. Next time, Our
Lord comes in Glory. Thunderbolts and vengeance, as it were. And
everyone will know their sins.
>Jesus contradicted the teaching of the Jewish priesthood about the
>doctrine of a physical resurrection from the grave; asserting that it is,
>instead, a Doctrine of Rebirth.
No He didn't. The Church teaches the Resurrection of the body. It also
teaches change of heart, and cleansing and rebirth through Baptism.
>> There were Jews in the movie. But nothing recognizably Jewish about them.
>> On the technical level, aside from a brief shot of a few people draped in
>> what might be a tallis, I saw not one Jewish artifact, heard (from the
>> mouths of the Jews) not one line from the Torah or the Mishnah, including
>> its code of criminal law
After all, Our Lord was Innocent.
>>and saw not a single Jewish ritual (observed by
>> Jews). I saw inaccuracies, such as Jewish Temple priests dressed in
>> costumes very different from the actual priestly vestments, whose colors,
>> size and number are easily accessible.
So the costumer was completely unprofessional? The costume design was
just utterly and entirely inaccurate? How could they have gotten it so
wrong? What were they looking at, instead, to come up with those
costumes?
>>I saw these Jewish priests, some
>> with hooked noses and all with hateful countenances and blood-lust pouring
>> insistently from their mouths.
Well, sure. They wanted the God of the Temple - dead - dead - dead,
more than anything else that they ever desired. Pilate repeatedly
gives them an out, and they repeatedly press even with veiled threats
that he is 'no friend' of Caesar if he denied their blood-lust. And
that is literally in the film - at least the film that I saw, twice.
>Forget the hooked noses and costumes. Problem is there was NO historical
>context for why they hated Jesus
Blasphemy! He will destroy the Temple!
Didn't you even SEE the movie?
>> Just in case the viewer did not grasp the character of the Jews in Jesus'
>> time from the portrayal of the elders, they are surrounded by howling and
>> cackling Jewish mobs. Gibson has not only the elders, but the entire mob of
>> Jews crying out to the Roman governor, "Crucify him!""
The mob screamed just that. It's in-the-Bible. That's the real
complaint of some with this film. It's a great film. It may be one of
the best movies ever made - seriously. But it's a religious film,
period. And those who are of a competing sect are going to be
offended, necessarily, and predictably. But they aren't honest enough
to give that as the reason for their opposition to the film, itself,
even that it exists as a film.
>> The Roman governor is pictured as reluctant to act on the Jews' screaming
>> for blood. The Roman governor is pictured as instinctively bent on mercy,
>> yielding to the Jews' desire for the jugular to avert a popular uprising.
No, he says - what is Truth? He really doesn't care, in other words.
But he knows that the Victim is Innocent. That's the point. So he is
reluctant to crucify him. But he's not that reluctant. He literally
condemns Our Lord, after ceremonially washing his hands. So he
knowingly condemns the Innocent to a brutal and barbaric torture and
death. That's Pilate.
It's literally in-the-film.
>> Two individual acts of kindness to Jesus, done apparently by Jews during
>> Jesus' march to his death, have no impact on the overwhelmingly poisonous
>> portrayal of the Jews of the time.
So Our Lord, being a "Jews of the time", and Our Blessed Mother, being
also a "Jews of the time", Peter, same, the Apostles - "Jews of the
time" - were just one "poisonous portrayal", is it? No . . . not in
that film. Not in Mel's film.
Read what Ebert had to say:
This scene and others might justifiably be cited by anyone concerned
that the movie contains anti-Semitism. My own feeling is that Gibson's
film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part
of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to
desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well
as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who
were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who
confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on
terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority.
The other Jews seen in the film are viewed positively; Simon helps
Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face,
Jews in the crowd cry out against his torture.
A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in
a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good,
some not, each one representing himself, none representing his
religion. The story involves a Jew who tried no less than to replace
the established religion and set himself up as the Messiah. He was
understandably greeted with a jaundiced eye by the Jewish
establishment while at the same time finding his support, his
disciples and the founders of his church entirely among his fellow
Jews. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful
misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to
Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race,
no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died
by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed
him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the
sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated
their own beliefs.
[http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2004/02/022401.html]
>The movie graphically represents archetypal Christianity, which is the
>doctrine of 'vicarious atonement'. It is a necessary element in the
>psychopathic, Satanic cult of Christian torture
Only a "satanic cultist" would offer such an insane criticism.
Now, c'mon. Planet earth is calling you. Come back.
>> soaked in blood, fascinated by brutality, obsessed with violence.
>BINGO.
BINGO? What the heck has BINGO got to do with it? There's nothing
brutal about BINGO.
Oh - you mean, 'spot on'? Exactly? That's right? Well - no, it's not.
>> Jesus is
>> pictured in this movie beaten so ferociously, so repeatedly, with such a
>> variety of brutal weapons, that no person could ever withstand even
They did. Some survived these whippings. Hard to believe. Others died
before crucifixion. But this was the God-Man. And He suffered more
than you see on screen. It was bloodier. It was more brutal. So was
the agonizing struggle on the Via Dolorosa. It's still symbolic in
this film. You couldn't show the actual violence, the real horror,
because people wouldn't believe it. You wouldn't be able to suspend
disbelief in a movie theatre. The reality would be so much stranger
than the fictional portrayal. The real Jesus Christ lost a lot more
blood than you see in Mel's Passion. He was beaten even worse. The
deep lacerations can be seen if one believes the Turin Shroud to be
His burial shroud.
>> has his Jesus survive fatal blows time and again, only to be attacked and
>> whipped and chain-beaten still more. Mel Gibson's religion is blood lust
Or the author's, perhaps.
>Christians should be going into ECSTASY watching a depiction of this
>torture. After all, this is their ticket into HEAVEN.
Just putting up with fools like you, perhaps. Don't think it's easy.
You just wouldn't know.
>> Oddly, in occasional cut-away shots, Jesus is pictured in earlier periods
>> preaching love and forgiveness; and on the cross he is also pictured
>> preaching forgiveness. I say this appears odd because Gibson's words pale
>> before his relentless pictures of violence.
Ummm . . . AGAINST God. Against Him. He was the Victim.
Don't blame the Victim. He was blameless.
>> Then, in a stylized shock, Jesus' mother insists on watching all this, duly
>> horrified of course, but strangely composed, strangely in control of her
>> wits
Because she should have been hysterically out of her mind, and unable
to function, of course - Our Blessed Mother? She couldn't have gone to
Him on the Via Dolorosa. She wouldn't have been able to see straight,
etc.?
Well . . . maybe she did. Maybe it happened just as described -
in-the-Bible.
>I have seen young Catholic mothers--delicate, dainty, beautiful and sexy--
>talking about having seen this movie. They smile with their jaws jutting out
>and their chests protruding in self-righteous glee over the extreme torture
>that 'God' 'Himself' went through to get their sorry asses into heaven.
The sorry bit is right. Same for you. But you don't want to be saved.
They do. And you're bitter about it, and are mad at them, just for
that.
Just be honest.
>> crying under the blows. Jesus' mother must watch. She must see the
>> violence. She must be there. She does not faint. She does not run away. She
>> does not cry herself to madness.
So she was supposed to go insane, rather than simply weep? Crying
wasn't enough? Having her very soul pierced wasn't enough? She was
supposed to go insane?
But the author of this screed wants you to take him, seriously. She
was supposed to go insane - or else, what?
>Deep psychopathology.
Somebody's, fer sure.
Anyway . . it just goes on and on like this..
So . . .
Peace.
--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
to the only God our Saviour by JESUS Christ our Lord,
be glory and magnificence, empire and power before
all worlds, and now and for all worlds evermore. Amen.
Paul Duca
Mark Johnson wrote:
Where are the scantily dressed dancing girls? They had THOSE in "The Ten
Commandments" and "Ben-Hur"
(not to mention Lawrence Olivier and Tony Curtis bathing together in
"Spartacus")
It's the only thing that pays the bills in a lot of Catholic
churches...
>
>
> Oh - you mean, 'spot on'? Exactly? That's right? Well - no, it's not.
>
> >> Jesus is
> >> pictured in this movie beaten so ferociously, so repeatedly, with such a
> >> variety of brutal weapons, that no person could ever withstand even
>
> They did. Some survived these whippings. Hard to believe. Others died
> before crucifixion. But this was the God-Man. And He suffered more
> than you see on screen. It was bloodier. It was more brutal. So was
> the agonizing struggle on the Via Dolorosa. It's still symbolic in
> this film. You couldn't show the actual violence, the real horror,
> because people wouldn't believe it. You wouldn't be able to suspend
> disbelief in a movie theatre. The reality would be so much stranger
> than the fictional portrayal.
But oh, so much more aoursing to the holy...
> The real Jesus Christ lost a lot more
> blood than you see in Mel's Passion. He was beaten even worse. The
> deep lacerations can be seen if one believes the Turin Shroud to be
> His burial shroud.
>
> >> has his Jesus survive fatal blows time and again, only to be attacked and
> >> whipped and chain-beaten still more. Mel Gibson's religion is blood lust
>
> Or the author's, perhaps.
>
> >Christians should be going into ECSTASY watching a depiction of this
> >torture. After all, this is their ticket into HEAVEN.
>
> Just putting up with fools like you, perhaps. Don't think it's easy.
> You just wouldn't know.
Where will they find the fools in Heaven to put up with you?
>
>
> >> Oddly, in occasional cut-away shots, Jesus is pictured in earlier periods
> >> preaching love and forgiveness; and on the cross he is also pictured
> >> preaching forgiveness. I say this appears odd because Gibson's words pale
> >> before his relentless pictures of violence.
>
> Ummm . . . AGAINST God. Against Him. He was the Victim.
>
> Don't blame the Victim. He was blameless.
>
> >> Then, in a stylized shock, Jesus' mother insists on watching all this, duly
> >> horrified of course, but strangely composed, strangely in control of her
> >> wits
>
> Because she should have been hysterically out of her mind, and unable
> to function, of course - Our Blessed Mother? She couldn't have gone to
> Him on the Via Dolorosa. She wouldn't have been able to see straight,
> etc.?
I'd say that after a life without sex, she was pretty hysterical
already....
>
>
> Well . . . maybe she did. Maybe it happened just as described -
> in-the-Bible.
>
> >I have seen young Catholic mothers--delicate, dainty, beautiful and sexy--
> >talking about having seen this movie. They smile with their jaws jutting out
> >and their chests protruding in self-righteous glee over the extreme torture
> >that 'God' 'Himself' went through to get their sorry asses into heaven.
>
> The sorry bit is right. Same for you. But you don't want to be saved.
> They do.
I hope they get to Heaven while their asses are still sexy and their
chests protubing without assistance....I mean, I don't want to fuck some wrinkled
saggy cow of a Catholic mother with a moustache.
>
>
> Just be honest.
>
> >> crying under the blows. Jesus' mother must watch. She must see the
> >> violence. She must be there. She does not faint. She does not run away. She
> >> does not cry herself to madness.
>
> So she was supposed to go insane, rather than simply weep? Crying
> wasn't enough? Having her very soul pierced wasn't enough? She was
> supposed to go insane?
>
Well, who took care of her after Joseph died?
Susan Cohen
news:<XZU0c.22466$C65....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>
> ...
>
> > > I am not preaching an inherited guilt, either.
> >
> > Yes, you are.
> > It's in your scripture & that movie you like so much.
>
> ************
>
> Where is inherited guilt preached in the New Testament and in that
> movie?
>
> That group that chanted about guilt being upon themselves and upon
> their children was making an unscriptural claim.
Thank you for answering your own question.
Thank you for admitting that Xian scriptures lie
> God does not enforce unBiblical claims.
> There is no such thing as inherited guilt.
> Each person is guilty of his own sins.
> A son is only guilty if he himself sins, not because his father
> sinned.
Thank you for admitting that Xian scriptures lie.
>
> Your father is guilty of his own rejection of Jesus.
No, there is no rejection.
There is simply recognition of nothing to accept.
> You are guilty of your own rejection of Jesus.
No, there is no rejection.
There is simply recognition of nothing to accept.
>
> If guilt were inherited, then I would be guilty of my ancestors'
> rejection of Jesus.
> But God says that guilt is *not* inherited.
Thank you for admitting that Xian scriptures lie.
Susan
Shan
> the cockroach wrote:
>
> > Religion is violence
> > By HILLEL GOLDBERG IJN Executive Editor
>
> Probably one of the best analyses I have read on alt.messianic
> about this movie. But what is he the executive editor of?
>
> I would like to convey to him my appreciation.
Fuck you, your Muhammad and your Koran and shit on the graves of
Muhammad, Ali, Fatimah, Khadeeja and Aysha.
Stephen Cooper
And anyways, Jesus said, "Father, forgive them for they know not what
they do."
Emma
>
>moshe wrote:
>
>>"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:<XZU0c.22466$C65....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>>I am not preaching an inherited guilt, either.
>>>
>>>Yes, you are.
>>>It's in your scripture & that movie you like so much.
>>
>>
>> ************
>>>>
>> rejection of Jesus.
>> But God says that guilt is *not* inherited.
>>
>
>And anyways, Jesus said, "Father, forgive them for they know not what
>they do."
>
I haven't really followed these movie threads and
so I don't know who here has seen the movie and who
hasn't. But I've read another review and this one thought that
it tries to make the Jewish crowd appear
demonic by showing shadowy figures (demons) moving
among the crowd. Also, the Jewish authorities are
seen watching the execution, which is not a part
of the gospels.
Susan Cohen
"Stephen Cooper" <nupre...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:3OR3c.14797$PY.2414@lakeread05...
>
>
> And anyways, Jesus said, "Father, forgive them for they know not what
> they do."
>
Oh, I see. A lie can be told if someone says that it's okay?
Susan
Stephen Cooper
Susan Cohen
I'm sorry - I guess I just got fed up with this stuff.
Susan
>