Quoting:
I saw this movie about 2 weeks ago.  I never cried so much at a movie theater in my entire life. :'(  I felt that Mel Gibson did an excellent job.  He gave us a glimpse  of the torture and torment Christ endured during his last 12 hours on earth.  I wept...and everyone else in the theater wept as well...
End Quote

Well, the last 2 movies I cried over were both very dramatic.  And ironically, one of them starred Mel Gibson and the other was about horrors done to Jews.

The one I cried the most over (and still do when I can bring myself to watch it - which is about once a year) was "Schindler's List".  That is a truely awesome movie, and always gets to me.  I still find it horrible to see what humans were able to do to each other.

The other was Mel's move "Ransom".  Being a father myself, I could totally sympathize with his character.  I very much felt the torture he was going through in this movie, and I applauded and cheered when he put the ransom up as a bounty on the head of the kidnappers.

I just hope that those who watch the movie come away with a positive impression, and not take it as some do, an anti-Jewish movie.  I still find it amazing that people can see that, when Jesus and all of his followers were Jews themselves.  But I guess ignorance knows no bounds.

Quoting:
I believe that some people already have their views set of what the movie is about and what it means even before they have seen it.
End Quote

Sadly, that is so very true.  Just the same way that many blasted "Battlefield Earth" because of who wrote it, even before sneak previews of the movie were released.  Or who blased "The Last Temptation", without even seeing it.  I myself finally got to see it last week, and was very moved.  I understood where Scorsase was going with it, and even though I did not like parts, overall I thought it was a positive movie which did not deserve the blasting it got.  (PS:  David Bowie as Pontius Pilate was truely inspired casting)

And the same way with anybody's interpretation of the Bible, they can twist it to almost any way they want.  Add in almost 2,000 years for minor changes, mistakes in translation and the like, and it is no wonder that so many do not see things the same way.

I myself realize that the Bible we read today was translated by order of Constantine, who was of course a Roman.  A great many scholars now believe that there was likely no Judas at all, and that the trial described never happened the way it is written.  Many believe (I am one of them) that Jesus was solely tried and convicted by the Romans, and Judas was a creation to shift the blame on the Jews.  By that time, Christianity had moved from being a subsect of Jewish faith into it's own religion.

I just wish people could see it with open eyes, and come away with positive feelings, not negative ones against a people now, for actions of 2,000 years ago.  To me, that makes as much sense as some that want to blame me for slavery here in the US.  The past is past, live for the present and future.

Quoting:
Pirated copies of "The Passion"...hmmmmmm.

Somehow that does not suprise me.  

I like the irony of how China could be responsible for the conversion of many Muslims to Christianity...  :P :P
End Quote

Well, Islam, Judiasm, and Christianity are all sister religions.  We hold most of the same beliefs, it is just in the details that we differ.  And Jesus is a major character in the Koran already.

My biggest fear from that, is that many will not look for the peaceful messages either in the New Testament or the Koran, but will simply use it as another "justification" to attack Jews.  But at the same time, I do have a hope that more positive will come out of it then negative.

I think my biggest hope is that a strong Muslim leader will emerge in my life, and bring about a new "Golden Age".  For about 500 years (8th - 12th century) Islam was flourishing and preserved a lot of literature when Europe was in the "Dark Ages".  They largely lived peacefully with the Jews, and caused little problems with them or others.  It was only when some of the empires started to collapse that they started to cause problems that lead to the Crusades.

But it is possible that many will convert because of this movie.  And that is not only a fear in the Middle East.  This week, Mexico gave the movie a XXX rating!  The current government is scared of the power of the Catholic Church, and is afraid that this movie may cause a power struggle, so they made it illegal for anybody under 18 to see it.

Really makes me glad I live here, where we do not have censorship like that.

Quoting:


Sadly, that is so very true.  Just the same way that many blasted "Battlefield Earth" because of who wrote it, even before sneak previews of the movie were released.  Or who blased "The Last Temptation", without even seeing it.  I myself finally got to see it last week, and was very moved.  I understood where Scorsase was going with it, and even though I did not like parts, overall I thought it was a positive movie which did not deserve the blasting it got.  (PS:  David Bowie as Pontius Pilate was truely inspired casting)

And the same way with anybody's interpretation of the Bible, they can twist it to almost any way they want.  Add in almost 2,000 years for minor changes, mistakes in translation and the like, and it is no wonder that so many do not see things the same way.

I myself realize that the Bible we read today was translated by order of Constantine, who was of course a Roman.  A great many scholars now believe that there was likely no Judas at all, and that the trial described never happened the way it is written.  Many believe (I am one of them) that Jesus was solely tried and convicted by the Romans, and Judas was a creation to shift the blame on the Jews.  By that time, Christianity had moved from being a subsect of Jewish faith into it's own religion.

I just wish people could see it with open eyes, and come away with positive feelings, not negative ones against a people now, for actions of 2,000 years ago.  To me, that makes as much sense as some that want to blame me for slavery here in the US.  The past is past, live for the present and future.
End Quote

That is a very fascinating theory.  Do you know of any good websites or books that explore the idea of Judas being a fictional creation?  I would like to read more on that.  I know that The Last Temptation of Christ had Jesus ask Judas to betray him, or "hand over" to the Roman authorities.  

In years of reading the Bible though, I never picked up any Anti-Semitiscism in the New Testament.  It was only when people pointed out how many passages there where in there that blamed the Jews for this and that which occured to Jesus that I realized that there definately could be something there.  Afterall, the NT was written in a time where it would be unfavorable to cast a bad light on the Romans.  Thus Pontinus Pilate is made into a much more sympathetic figure then he probably was in real life.      

Quoting:
 A great many scholars now believe that there was likely no Judas at all, and that the trial described never happened the way it is written.  Many believe (I am one of them) that Jesus was solely tried and convicted by the Romans, and Judas was a creation to shift the blame on the Jews.  
End Quote

What exactly do you base this theory on?

Quoting:

That is a very fascinating theory.  Do you know of any good websites or books that explore the idea of Judas being a fictional creation?  I would like to read more on that.  I know that The Last Temptation of Christ had Jesus ask Judas to betray him, or "hand over" to the Roman authorities.  

In years of reading the Bible though, I never picked up any Anti-Semitiscism in the New Testament.  It was only when people pointed out how many passages there where in there that blamed the Jews for this and that which occured to Jesus that I realized that there definately could be something there.  Afterall, the NT was written in a time where it would be unfavorable to cast a bad light on the Romans.  Thus Pontinus Pilate is made into a much more sympathetic figure then he probably was in real life.      
End Quote

Well, I never saw the NT as "Anti-Semitic".  I think it is basically a form of "spin control".  I think the orriginal intent was to place the blame on the Sanhedren and on Kiafus.  After all, the Temple Priests probably were very afraid of the influence of Jesus.  And those followers were Jews after all.

Quoting:
What exactly do you base this theory on?
End Quote

Actually, a lot of clues are right there in the Bible.  The first is that Judas is said to have died 2 different ways.  One was by having his bowels ripped open, the other by suicide by hanging.  But there are many more clues.

In Matthew, Jesus told the Twelve that in the Kingdom of Heaven, "When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, Ye also shall sit upon Twelve Thrones, judginh the Twelve Tribes of Israel."  Since Judas was one of the twelve, he was included among this number.

Another contradiction was in 1st Coranthians, when Jesus was seen on the road after the resurection "by the Twelve".  This is also mentioned in John, “From that time many of his Disciples, went back and walked no more with Him.  Then said Jesus unto the Twelve 'Will ye also go away?'"  If Judas had died after the death of Jesus, how could there still be 12?

There are a great number of other irregularities that suggest that what we read is not the original way it happened, but a revised version.  Judas was a very common name, because of Judas Maccabees.  Considering that Judas was also the "keeper of the purse", he also made a convient scapegoat, simply by making him greedy.  Would Jesus really have been fooled enough to give such a person some of his powers, making him a Disciple, making him the treasurer?

Until Constantine, there was no "Bible".  Each church would have various books they would use.  A great many of them are no longer in the Bible.  The Gospels of Andrew, The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Jubilees, THe Gospel of the Infant Jesus, and many others which are NOT mentioned in the "Bible" we know today.  And in almost none of them was Judas named as "the Betrayer".

There are a great number of things in the NT that are obviously edited in, and not original.  But for me, that does not reduce my faith.  I know those changes were made by men, and we are falliable after all.

Quoting:
Another contradiction was in 1st Coranthians, when Jesus was seen on the road after the resurection "by the Twelve".  This is also mentioned in John, “From that time many of his Disciples, went back and walked no more with Him.  Then said Jesus unto the Twelve 'Will ye also go away?'"  If Judas had died after the death of Jesus, how could there still be 12?

End Quote

Actually, after Judas' death, the remaining apostles chose another man to take Judas' place, if you will.

Quoting:
Actually, a lot of clues are right there in the Bible.  The first is that Judas is said to have died 2 different ways.  One was by having his bowels ripped open, the other by suicide by hanging.  But there are many more clues.End Quote

Well, Judas did hang himself. He fell from his rope into the field, bursting open and spilling his guts possibly because he was dead and bloated (sorry for the graphic  :P ). (Acts 1:18 )

Quoting:

In Matthew, Jesus told the Twelve that in the Kingdom of Heaven, "When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, Ye also shall sit upon Twelve Thrones, judginh the Twelve Tribes of Israel."  Since Judas was one of the twelve, he was included among this number.End Quote

As onaree says above, Judas was replaced...by Matthias (Acts 1:26). That Judas would be replaced was prophesied in Psalm 109:8.

Quoting:
Another contradiction was in 1st Coranthians, when Jesus was seen on the road after the resurection "by the Twelve".  This is also mentioned in John, “From that time many of his Disciples, went back and walked no more with Him.  Then said Jesus unto the Twelve 'Will ye also go away?'"  If Judas had died after the death of Jesus, how could there still be 12?End Quote

Ok, here you have your scriptures muddled. In three of the four Gospels, after the resurrection, "eleven disciples" are mentioned, not twelve (Mat. 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9).

As for John, the passage you refer to is John 6:66. This took place before the betrayal and death of Jesus, not after. Judas was still among the twelve disciples.

Quoting:
There are a great number of other irregularities that suggest that what we read is not the original way it happened, but a revised version.  Judas was a very common name, because of Judas Maccabees.  Considering that Judas was also the "keeper of the purse", he also made a convient scapegoat, simply by making him greedy.  Would Jesus really have been fooled enough to give such a person some of his powers, making him a Disciple, making him the treasurer?End Quote

Jesus was never "fooled" about Judas, he knew exactly what Judas was capable of: "Jesus answered them, 'Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?' He spake of Judas Iscariot of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve." (John 6:70). This scripture is even very specific as to which Judas Jesus is referring to.

Quoting:
Until Constantine, there was no "Bible".  Each church would have various books they would use.  A great many of them are no longer in the Bible.  The Gospels of Andrew, The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Jubilees, THe Gospel of the Infant Jesus, and many others which are NOT mentioned in the "Bible" we know today.  And in almost none of them was Judas named as "the Betrayer".End Quote

Well, they did have the Old Testament, as well as Paul's writings.

As for our Bible today, out of the many religious writings that were circulating at the time, only 66 books were accepted as inspired by God. The books were tested by the following principles:

(1) Authorship by a recognized prophet of God or leader in Israel.

(2) Internal evidence of its inspiration and authority.

(3) Writings containing obvious doctrinal and factual errors were eliminated. Books accepted by the community that received them were given priority consideration.

(4) Further validations were given to certain Old Testament books when they were quoted from by Christ or the New Testament writers and referred to as Scripture.

The 12 books of the APOCRYPHA (containing the books you mention above) were not accepted as part of the Biblical canon for these reasons:

1) They appeared in no Hebrew canon.
2) None were quoted in the New Testament.
3) They were not included in any early lists.
4) Their content was too mythological.

Quoting:
There are a great number of things in the NT that are obviously edited in, and not original.  But for me, that does not reduce my faith.  I know those changes were made by men, and we are falliable after all.
End Quote

Well, we will definitley part ways here. I believe that all Scripture is inspired of God. This Word is what I put my faith in. After all, Jesus is the Word made flesh.

I understand that not all believe as I do, and that's cool.  8)

Quoting:
Well, we will definitley part ways here. I believe that all Scripture is inspired of God. This Word is what I put my faith in. After all, Jesus is the Word made flesh.

I understand that not all believe as I do, and that's cool.  8)
End Quote

Right on, gamblefish!  I totally agree with you.  You said it very well.

Quoting:

Well, Judas did hang himself. He fell from his rope into the field, bursting open and spilling his guts possibly because he was dead and bloated (sorry for the graphic  :P ). (Acts 1:18 )
End Quote

We were just discussing this today in church.  Our Pastor does a tour to Israel every year and he said this field is still there to this day.  It is apparantly very rocky and hilly...easy for the above to have happened.

Quoting:

As onaree says above, Judas was replaced...by Matthias (Acts 1:26). That Judas would be replaced was prophesied in Psalm 109:8.

End Quote

I was going to post the same thing...again we talkied about it in church today.  (We discussed Acts:1)  I think that it was of God that this was what we talked about today...gotta love His timing.

Quoting:

Well, we will definitley part ways here. I believe that all Scripture is inspired of God. This Word is what I put my faith in. After all, Jesus is the Word made flesh.

I understand that not all believe as I do, and that's cool.  8)
End Quote

I third this. :)

Well said, Gamblefish.

Quoting:
Well, we will definitley part ways here. I believe that all Scripture is inspired of God. This Word is what I put my faith in. After all, Jesus is the Word made flesh.
End Quote

Oh, I do agree there.  But as it is written now, it was written by men, and men do make mistakes.  Some of them are in translation, which is why in the middle ages they ran around breaking "witches" instead of liars ("Warlock" originally meant 'oath breaker', but was incorrectly translated).

And there was much politics in achieving the canon of the NT, just as there was in the scriptures.  I am a Christian, but that also does not mean I turn my mind off and blindly accept whatever was said.  Even right now, I am working on the writings of Josephus, which is the oldest non-religious historical text to reference Jesus.

But I am not trying to start a "this is right this is wrong" conversation.  But there are such differences even in how 2 of the 3 major Christian faiths view his life.  Just ask a Catholic about his brothes and sisters, then ask a Protestant (I am not sure how the Eastern Orthadox views that issue).

Quoting:


Oh, I do agree there.  But as it is written now, it was written by men, and men do make mistakes.  Some of them are in translation, which is why in the middle ages they ran around breaking "witches" instead of liars ("Warlock" originally meant 'oath breaker', but was incorrectly translated).End Quote

The Hebrew word "kashaph" in the OT is translated as "witch" or "sorcerer". "Warlock" does not appear in the OT. The Hebrew word "kazal" is translated "to lie, tell a lie, be a liar, be found a liar, be in vain, fail". Since both words appear in the OT, and in context they mean different things, I don't think they were mistranslated at all.

BTW, how do you "break" a witch...with a BAT?  ;D ;D

Quoting:
 I am a Christian, but that also does not mean I turn my mind off and blindly accept whatever was said.  
End Quote

Yeah, me neither.  8)

Quoting:
http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?567


Well, this pretty much wraps up my reasons for disliking this movie.  This movie is full of Catholic elements, and I am a Baptist.  Too many non-Catholics (including Baptists) think this is the greatest representation ever of the Gospels, but they just don't realize what is wrong with it!  It's like they think this movie is the new Bible or something.  Anyone who goes to see it should just think of it as a form of entertainment, because that's basically what it is.
And that is my opinion.
End Quote

While I respect your opinion for disliking the film, I would like to comment my opinion.

I have been brought up in a United Baptist Church.  I have been in the same church since I was born, which is almost 30 years ago.  I am also honored to say that I know Christ as my savior.  I've been a Christian since 1988.  

I am one that liked the movie.  I have also seen the interviews and read the articles relating to this movie.  I was very, very moved by it.    For almost 30 years I had heard how Jesus died for me.  But, it wasn't until recent years that I started to realize what all that entailed.  I knew he was "wounded for my transgressions and bruised for my iniquities."  I knew about the nails and the crown of thorns.  I knew he had been beaten, but I didn't know to what extent.

I realize that this film is an interpretation of what happened.  But, most of it is based on history.  The filmakers researched how crucifictions and scouraging took place.  This is why I was so moved to tears.  I'm sure what my Lord and Saviour endured was much worse that what I had pictured in my mind.  I'm sure it was much more than what our Baptist Sunday School literature depicts.  

While I agree that this movie will be a great evangelical tool, I don't think it could ever replace good old fashioned preaching.  However, I do think that God gave us all different talents for different reasons.  I am one that gets great blessings from music.  Others I know are visual learners.  I also know of several people that have been saved because of seeing this movie and realizing what Jesus went though.  Should the people who have been saved because of this movie be denied their salvation because it didn't happen in a church?  

I certainly wouldn't classify this movie as entertainment.  I was not entertained by watching.

The section in the article you gave a link to talks about things that were added.  I believe that we are not to add to or take away from the bible.  However, the part of the film about Mary made me stop to think about Jesus as a child.  I'm sure that even though our Bible doesn't mention his childhood, he did have one.  After all, he became flesh for us for the purpose of dying for our sins.  I'm sure he had to grow up.  I'm sure that Mary had maternal instincts and feelings toward him since she carried him in her womb, gave birth to him and watched him grow.  Also, he was her saviour too.  How could she not feel attached?

I personally like the film being in the original language.  I don't know about you, but a lot of the "good old baptists" that I know in my church also have problems with any other version of the bible besides King James.  They tend to think that Jesus spoke as it was written in the King James Version.  Well, Jesus didn't speak in the King James version.  

I hope I didn't offend anyone by this post, but I had to share my opinion.

Quoting:

I personally like the film being in the original language.  I don't know about you, but a lot of the "good old baptists" that I know in my church also have problems with any other version of the bible besides King James.  They tend to think that Jesus spoke as it was written in the King James Version.  Well, Jesus didn't speak in the King James version.  

End Quote

As far as my opinion on the KJV, I happen to be one of those "good ol' Baptists" as well.  But it has nothing to do with if Jesus spoke in the KJV.  It all has to do with the Sovereignty of God.  God's intent is to have his Word prevail throughout all generations.  Just look how long the KJV has lasted and how many lives it has changed.  There is no need for all these new versions.  The KJV is still modern English, and is understandable.  It's just that some people just want a Bible that's "easy" to read.  They "can't understand" that "Old English kinda stuff" in the KJV.  Well, what about Acts 8: 30-31, when Philip was talking to the Ethiopian eunuch: "And Philip ran thither to him and heard him him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?  And he Said, How can I , except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."  In verse 35: "Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."    
All we need to be able to "understand" is someone to preach the Word to us.  Any other translation of the Bible really is not necessary...unless somehow the English language TOTALLY CHANGED.

Quoting:
Considering how old the Bible is and how many version changes it has gone through I don't think you can claim any one version is "gospel".

You just gotta believe in God the way you want to, not how some book tells you :)
End Quote

Amen brother :-*