The Passion of the Christ

[Griffen]

Whatever the Bible means to each individual, it is not a reliable historical record. It is a book which was written by a multitude of people, at least 30 years after Christ's death, with so many translations and edits, that to use it as an accurate historical reference is futile.
Just to illustrate my point, which Bible are you talking about? Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jewish, Samaritan? They all vary significantly.

Do you actually believe there were people sitting around recording every single word of every single event in human history as it actually happend? You could apply your statement about historical records to virtually every major human event in history, not just the Bible.

___________________________________________________
DEFINITION: HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD
A way of reading Scripture that makes use of historical research, literary analysis and the findings of anthropology, archaeology and other sciences. It is historical inasmuch as scholars seek to discover the social, economic, political and cultural setting of biblical times. It is critical in that experts judge and evaluate the text and its narrative in light of literary analysis and scientific information. Through this kind of scholarly detective work, modern Bible readers are interpreting what the ancient Bible writers had to say.

Most serious scholars today believe that the Bible is God's Word in human terms. They do not reject inspiration, but neither do they believe that God dictated the words of sacred Scripture to secretaries or mere human tape recorders. Rather, God's people experienced God's holy presence, learned God's divine will and then found the means appropriate to them to express, under God's inspiration, the truths of this revelation.

The historical-critical method uses several types of criticism or analysis; the chief types are textual criticism, form criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism, and historical criticism. Through the historical-critical method, we have come to see that the Bible in no way contradicts the truths of reason or the facts of science.
___________________________________________________

 

[ncdogdoc]

Re: Review by Andrew Sullivan

........Anti-Semitism is the original sin of Christianity. Far from expiating it, this movie clearly enjoys taunting those Catholics as well as Jews who are determined to confront that legacy. In that sense alone, it is a deeply immoral work of art.

I think this statement best describes his pre-conceived view of the film, and he is using his pen to do exactly what he chastises Mel for doing with his camera. This has to be the most defensive or self esteem building (of one who has none) statements that I have ever read. Sorry, but this really blows me away.

Having said that, I am also sorry to see "outside" voices, no matter whose they are, brought into this thread.

 

[nsxtasy]

I am also sorry to see "outside" voices, no matter whose they are, brought into this thread.

Sometimes we would like to make a point, but we find that it has already been elucidated very well by someone else whose profession is to do so. Rather than spending hours trying to come up with all the words and tweaking them into a coherent, articulate commentary, it's easier (and quicker) to leverage someone else's labors by posting it here.

To deny this is to demand that any of us must spend hours and hours if we want to examine many aspects of an issue, which is a totally unreasonable demand.

Heck, sometimes people have quoted my lengthy explanations of a technical NSX issue in discussions here - gearing, tire calculations, etc. Would you demand that they not do so, that they spend hours writing their own explanation and analysis instead? (I do not mind being quoted, as long as credit is given for the source.)

One other point: often I have heard someone feign outrage at quoting someone else, when in fact they disagree with what is being stated and their ulterior motive in objecting is to silence those who express an opinion through such quotation.

 

[matteni]

One other point: often I have heard someone feign outrage at quoting someone else, when in fact they disagree with what is being stated and their ulterior motive in objecting is to silence those who express an opinion through such quotation.

I completely agree - if you are disappointed that people are quoting professional writers/reviewers who are better trained, better organized, and/or more eloquent - join a local debate club. There are no standards or rules of acceptable posting when it comes to how one expresses their opinions on an internet forum such as this.

In my mind this is predominantly an internet for the Acura NSX. IMO - people are often surprised that people as passionate about an Acura NSX don't share similar political, social, economic, religious, or cultural views. Sometimes people post on divisive topics and get some affirming responses but they don't see the flurry of PMs or the many silent people who at least disagree or at most are offended by their points of view.

Also - many times I am more disappointed with people who post under the pretense that they are expressing their views - when in fact they are expressing the views of someone else they talked to or read and don't quote the source accordingly.

BTW - before you assume that I have a bone to pick with the movie or the subject matter - I am a born and raised Catholic with (I believe) a certain level of faith and spirituality. I do believe Jesus Christ died for our sins but often wonder if he would have endorsed this film from what I am reading about it. I wonder if there isn't enough torture, violence, hatred, and anguish on TV every night to imagine and understand the pain Christ went through. What's seems to have been lost IMO is to understand his message of love, tolerance, patience, faith, and devotion. To me - the movie's "worst case scenario" of torture ad gore detracts from his life and is divisive in nature - rather then uniting. To me it is as if someone you loved died a terrible death but the exact details were a little scratchy. Then imagine someone makes a 2 hour film about all the horrific things that did and could have happened at the time of death. How would that make you feel - watching a movie like that about a loved one? Would you feel closer to the person or violated and hollow inside? Would you wish more time was spent on the person's life and message?

ICBW but have no desire to see the movie at this point so I guess I will never know. If this brings people with little or no faith closer to understanding their own purpose in life and/or opens up the possibility of divinity - that's wonderful. I just don't see how this approach could do that but you never know.

 

[nkb]

Do you actually believe there were people sitting around recording every single word of every single event in human history as it actually happend? You could apply your statement about historical records to virtually every major human event in history, not just the Bible.

Are you telling me that historical record-keeping has not improved over the last 2000 years? Nowadays, for any record to have any kind of validity, it has to have multiple sources. One person's account of events is not sufficient anymore, as it was a long time ago.
We don't have that in the case of the Bible, therefore it is not an accurate and reliable historical document.

Take a significant world event like World War II. Are you telling me the records of the events don't have more credibility than what the Bible says happened 2000 years ago?

Why is that? Several reasons: 1. It was a lot more recent, so we even have witnesses that are still alive, 2. There were many independant record keepers to verify each other's accounts, and 3. It was not passed on as word-of-mouth for at least 30 years before being written down.

The further back in history an event goes, the bigger the grain of salt is that I take it with.

 

[Tom Larkins]

One other point: often I have heard someone feign outrage at quoting someone else, when in fact they disagree with what is being stated and their ulterior motive in objecting is to silence those who express an opinion through such quotation.

I can only speak to myself. In no way is there any attempt to silence someone for bring a "quote" or "OpEd" piece from print.


My only contention w/the article from the Atlanta Journal is what type of picture he painted. Has he used the same brush in the past and/or is he using his power in the print media to objectively look and other movies. Know one has can say can they! Was the author taken back by the first 30mins of "Private Ryan" or the vivid scenes from others I mentioned. Some of these writers praise the actors/directors for artistic integrity and the general public is left scratching its head. That is why I asked and its fair ?. I look at these people that print that stuff as nothing more than critics at times and his stuff made me wonder. Credibility means something to me if you have the power to reach the masses does it not matter. Most of us here don't have the ability to do that sort of thing. If you want to bring a article to mention, fine, great w/me, But did that author bring anything to the table that hasn't been mentioned and forced down my throat as a christian for years by these higher learned types. Heck I had to look in a dictionary b/c I didn't know what some of the words they used meant.

OpEd is different from personal opinion is it not. You can agree w/certain points as we all do from time to time and know one I can see has bashed anyone that contributed that held an opinion outside that.

Lets keep it that way. I find this most inciteful and I think we all learn from whats said here, although I feel like I'm chasing my tail trying to explain myself. I guess I'm not a columnist "tounge-n-check". Seriously folks, if anything this movie may have done what God has intended it to do. Inspire conversation, reflect on past history whether we have complete 100% accuracy or not. Ask and seek truth from the Bible. Inspire you to see what it says for yourself if you have never looked before. If your skeptical, be sure and make the attemp to put emotion aside and really prove yourself. Sorry for preaching guys. Thanks and thats all for me

 

[nsxtasy]

I find this most inciteful

Inciteful or insightful?

Ironic how two homonyms can have such widely divergent meanings...

 

[Tom Larkins]

Inciteful or insightful?

Ironic how two homonyms can have such widely divergent meanings...

Good one..... its insightful.....told ya I needed a dictionary.

Now I'm done

 

[nkb]

Has he used the same brush in the past and/or is he using his power in the print media to objectively look and other movies. Know one has can say can they!

I'm not sure why that makes a difference. If you want to quote someone because you either agree or disagree with that specific point of view, then what that person has said in other situations has no bearing.

 

[Griffen]

Take a significant world event like World War II. Are you telling me the records of the events don't have more credibility than what the Bible says happened 2000 years ago?

Are you saying they will 2000 years from now?

 

[nkb]

Ask and seek truth from the Bible.

Which one?

 

[nkb]

Are you saying they will 2000 years from now?

2000 years from now, the Bible will be 4000 years old. So, by my criteria, historical records from WW II will still be more reliable than the Bible (as a historical reference).

But, you missed my point somewhat. I am saying that record-keeping has progressed immensely, along with a serious decline in people's overall willingness to believe everything that is thrown their way.

 

[NSXLNT]

NKB, you asked to be shown where Pilate acted under the direction of the Jewish leaders. I just read in the King James Version, Gospel of John. Chapter 18, from verse 28 through to the end and on into Chapter 19 up until verse 16, clearly describes the interaction between Pilate, Jesus and the Jewish leaders. It's pretty clear that Pilate wanted nothing to do with executing who he felt was an innocent man.
Now, my own opinion: This is all one more example of political correctness run amok. Do we re-write history so as not to offend anyone? If we make a movie about Pearl Harbor, are we anti-Japanese? Are we anti-German if we make a movie about their invasion of Poland? Are we anti-Vietnamese if we make a movie about the Viet Nam war? Are we anti-American if we make a movie about Custer's Last Stand from the Native American point of view? Why is there a problem with showing a film depicting what some religious leaders did to a man they were fearful of over two thousand years ago? And as far as gratuitous violence goes, there is more graphic violence on my teenager's video games than what is in this movie.
Jesus was a Jew, and his own people handed him over to the Roman authorities to be killed because they feared losing their status quo. Yet some of his final words were: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" He showed no hatred towards, nor wanted any revenge against the very people who were responsible for his suffering and death. That is the lesson we all should learn. Anyone claiming to truly follow Christ should act the same way. There is no room for any prejudice towards anyone or any group. Only love.
Peace

 

[Ponyboy]

How is the Bible not an accurate historical record? Whether you believe the miracles or not, the Bible contains a multitude of accurate accounts of genelogy, geography, and culture - etc. Not to mention certain scientific discoveries (albeit through indirect mention) hundreds or thousands of years before their secular discovery.

As far as the movie is concerned, I'm not so sure I want to see it. I'm sure I will, in time, despite my fears of the violence portrayed. It's a little much for me right now.

 

[nkb]

How is the Bible not an accurate historical record? Whether you believe the miracles or not, the Bible contains a multitude of accurate accounts of genelogy, geography, and culture - etc. Not to mention certain scientific discoveries (albeit through indirect mention) hundreds or thousands of years before their secular discovery.

Well, if I read a book that states at one point that 2+2=4, but then in another part, states that the Earth is banana-shaped, the latter part tends to put a shadow over what may be correct.

You will have to be more specific on the scientific discoveries, as I have not heard about that. Are these references that were linked after the fact?

 

[Tom Larkins]

NKB,

I stated with that I was done w/this topic before you asked:

"Which one"

in the context of my statement

"Ask and seek the truth from the Bible"

After looking back at some of the replies or lack thereof from you may I ask you a ?

Which Bible would you like to use?

 

[ajnsx]

griffin, that baby avatar freaks me out!

As for the movie, i'm not religious, it amazes/worries me the controversy/violence it causes when these types of sensitive material type films come out. Just like when 'Piss Christ' was displayed at an art exhibition centre in Melbourne and all hell broke loose, a couple of years back. Can't people just understand its someone's interpretation of a story (for me).

 

[jlindy]

Just because someone says it happened, doesn't mean it did. That logic works both ways.

I am a skeptical person by nature, so, anything I hear from other sources has to pass my BS meter first, before I even consider that it might be true

Wow, that is the first time I have heard someone refer to the details of the Bible as needing to pass a BS meter before believing it. I can't imagine that it is healthy for a person to live with such built up cynicism and skepticism. Is that same fear that resulted in the death of Christ in the first place. It just proves that in some ways we have not made much progress in the last 2000 years.

 

[Joel]

Well, I finally saw it over the weekend. It's definitely an experience. I felt my body contract and cringe at the anticipation of what's gonna happen in the next scene. I looked around the theater a couple of times and saw several people around me constantly wiping their eyes, even the men.

All in all, I thought the movie was well shot. Couldn't help but notice the influence of Catholicism in the film. Also, watching it from a medical standpoint, a couple of the scenes were a bit exaggerated. I still say the dialogue in the movie should have been in Greek instead of Latin--oh well.

 

[nkb]

Which Bible would you like to use?

Well, that was my question to you. You advised to read the Bible and seek the truth, but were not specific as to which Bible, since there are so many different versions.
So, which one were you referring to?

 

[Hrant]

OK, I can't resist any longer ...........

NKB, you obviously are enjoying this needling but I am not sure what your point is as this is a discussion on the movie nothing more and nothing less. If you don't believe in Christianity, or any other religion, that is fine, but start a new thread.

So my question to you regarding this thread is: when was the last time you read different versions of the Bible, and which versions did you read? The different versions of the Bible do NOT dispute the story of Jesus. The versions relate to which translation is used as the basis. And yes, like anything else when you translate something to different language there is always going to be some variation as no language covers the same cultural sentiments of another language. In fact there is one more translation that is now being used more regularly by scholars since it has been subjected to fewer changes over centuries, that is the Armenian manuscripts. [For those not familiar, Armenia was the first nation in the world to adopt Christianity as a state religion back in 301 AD, and yes before Rome did. And the Armenian alphabet was created precisely to translate The Bible/New Testaments and spread Christianity].

Such translations do NOT mean that the various legitimate versions now on the market are factually inaccurate. And please don't ask me to define "legitimate." As people's dialect change, so will the Bible to make it more readable. Heck, even on this thread you had to explain yourself zillion times to get your point across - which still escapes me! Should we then assume that you too are NOT intelectually coherent?

For believers, the Bible, the Gospel, the Scriptures, the Holy Book, the Koran, The New Testament, the Old Testament, or etc. ........, are all accepted as a matter of faith. You either believe or you don't.

 

[nkb]

NKB, you obviously are enjoying this needling...

That was absolutely not my intention.
If you follow the thread, I was just questioning the statement that this movie "realistically" shows the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ. I was making the point that it is a silly claim to make, based on the fact that historical records are understandably inaccurate, the main basis for this movie is a book that has many interpretations, based on 2000 years of "evolution" (no pun intended), and basically all movies will skew "facts" to varying degrees, because it's all based on the director's views and beliefs.

I apologize for taking this thread off-topic, which wasn't my plan. Of course, many others did the same, albeit in a different direction.

 

[nkb]

Wow, that is the first time I have heard someone refer to the details of the Bible as needing to pass a BS meter before believing it. I can't imagine that it is healthy for a person to live with such built up cynicism and skepticism. Is that same fear that resulted in the death of Christ in the first place. It just proves that in some ways we have not made much progress in the last 2000 years.

Wow, you are able to ascertain my mental health based on the fact that I don't blindly believe the Bible?

I'm not sure what fear you are referring to, but I can assure you I experience no fear whatsoever in this context. I lead a very happy, satisfying and moral life, am happily married, and am very comfortable living the rest of my days without having to worry about what other people think I should believe. I don't need a book to tell me how to be a good person.

I also respect other people's right to believe whatever they want, and don't judge them based on their beliefs, but rather on what kind of person they are.

As I said in my previous post, I apologize for getting off-topic, and I will not post anymore on this thread, unless it pertains directly to the movie.

 

[nsxtasy]

The different versions of the Bible do NOT dispute the story of Jesus. The versions relate to which translation is used as the basis.

Not true - since not all versions of the Bible include the New Testament.

 

[huckster]

Ok, i just saw it.

Very violent, but i actually thought it was a pretty good representation of what we know to be actual methods of punishment and torture. The flaying thing is over the top, but that is a real punishment/torture used during that time period.

I couldnt help but notice the number of lashes administered. Really thought that was drawn out, over the top. Standard canings rarely exceeded 20 strokes. 40 lashes was one step before death, and most passed out way before the full punishment was over.

In the movie the depiction was a caning AND flaying that went well over 40 lashes.

Just me, but i left feeling a little let down. This did NOT focus on the Christ message very much. Mostly was a docu-drama on the violence of people and the ability of Jesus to succumb to horrible torture.

I definately didnt get the anti-Jewish thing, although Pilate was portrayed as sympathetic and unwilling to persecute Jesus. This seemed like a fairly plausible account. If you wanted to see anti-semitism, you could. But if you wanted to see satan as a saviour, you could see that too. I think youd have to be pretty twisted to come out seeing either.

Then again, I've always thought the focus on the crucifix was morbid. The teachings and the resurrection are what matter in my opinion.