Discussion:
a few notes on mel gibson's sources for passion
(too old to reply)
monsieurblob
2004-02-27 09:33:19 UTC
Permalink
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).

gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.

his repetitive defense when its come to justifying every single
sequence in his movie has been that he has not invented anything, that
'its all in the bible'. christopher hitchens, in an article in vanity
fair, says: 'it seems like gibson thought the gospels were written by
eyewitness accounts. perhaps he doesnt know that the gospels were
written years after christ's death and that in them intervened many
different hands.'

gibson's said his main sources were the bible and two nuns: saint
maría de ágreda and anne catherine emmerich. the first one, spanish,
wrote in the 17th century that the guilt would follow the jewish
people, punished with 'horrible impurity'. the second, a german of the
19th century, had a vision in which she saved a jewish woman from
purgatory. that woman confessed to her how the jews killed christian
children and used their bowels to prepare the bread for jewish easter.
the vision was one of the favourite antisemitic illustrations for the
nazis.
Stephen Glynn
2004-02-27 10:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.
Point of clarification. In the view of the Roman Catholic Church (my lot)
Gibson's outfit are nothing to do with us. As far as we're concerned they
are schismatics (and as far as I'm concerned they're a bunch of crackpots).

Oh, and while I'm a not particularly good Catholic I've rarely been accused
of being a Conservative or being particularly conservative.

Steve.
Daniel Hoehr
2004-02-27 10:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.
Point of clarification. In the view of the Roman Catholic Church (my lot)
Gibson's outfit are nothing to do with us. As far as we're concerned they
are schismatics (and as far as I'm concerned they're a bunch of crackpots).
Well said.
Post by Stephen Glynn
Oh, and while I'm a not particularly good Catholic I've rarely been accused
of being a Conservative or being particularly conservative.
While I'm trying to be a good Catholic, I've never been accused of being
a Conservative either. To us over here on the good ol' continent of
Europe, that sort of black-and-white thinking seems alien and typical
American. ;-)
Post by Stephen Glynn
Steve.
Daniel
Mark Johnson
2004-02-27 16:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
Point of clarification. In the view of the Roman Catholic Church (my lot)
Gibson's outfit are nothing to do with us. As far as we're concerned they
are schismatics
Then His Holiness considers Mel to be a schismatic, too - or is that
just, you?

If you're so eager to toss the term around, maybe you're trying to say
something to yourself. Reformed Catholic are ya?


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.
Stephen Glynn
2004-02-27 16:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
Point of clarification. In the view of the Roman Catholic Church (my lot)
Gibson's outfit are nothing to do with us. As far as we're concerned they
are schismatics
Then His Holiness considers Mel to be a schismatic, too - or is that
just, you?
No, not just me but His Holiness too.

Do you want me to look up the appropriate bit on the Vatican website so as
to save you the bother?

Steve
Mark Johnson
2004-02-27 17:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
Then His Holiness considers Mel to be a schismatic, too - or is that
just, you?
No, not just me but His Holiness too.
Do you want me to look up the appropriate bit on the Vatican website so as
to save you the bother?
His Holiness called Mel Gibson a - schismatic?

Yeah - I'd like to see that. What's the URL?


Peace.
Stephen Glynn
2004-02-27 19:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
Then His Holiness considers Mel to be a schismatic, too - or is that
just, you?
No, not just me but His Holiness too.
Do you want me to look up the appropriate bit on the Vatican website so as
to save you the bother?
His Holiness called Mel Gibson a - schismatic?
Yeah - I'd like to see that. What's the URL?
Peace.
Not sure His Holiness has denounced Mel Gibson as a schismatic though I will
keep on reseaching.

For the meantime check out

http://www.catholic-pages.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=660%20&whichpage=1

Steve
Mark Johnson
2004-02-28 04:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
Then His Holiness considers Mel to be a schismatic, too - or is that
just, you?
No, not just me but His Holiness too.
Do you want me to look up the appropriate bit on the Vatican website so
to save you the bother?
His Holiness called Mel Gibson a - schismatic?
Yeah - I'd like to see that. What's the URL?
Not sure His Holiness has denounced Mel Gibson as a schismatic though I will
keep on reseaching.
Do that.

Face it, dude. If Gibson or myself are schismatic, then every Doctor,
council, and Pope prior to the two PC Popes were schismatic. You can't
have it both ways. That's exactly the point Mel made in the ABC
interview, and which Catholics have pointed out for decades.


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
2004-02-28 08:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
Then His Holiness considers Mel to be a schismatic, too - or is that
just, you?
No, not just me but His Holiness too.
Do you want me to look up the appropriate bit on the Vatican website so
to save you the bother?
His Holiness called Mel Gibson a - schismatic?
Yeah - I'd like to see that. What's the URL?
Not sure His Holiness has denounced Mel Gibson as a schismatic though I will
keep on reseaching.
Do that.
Face it, dude. If Gibson or myself are schismatic, then every Doctor,
council, and Pope prior to the two PC Popes were schismatic. You can't
have it both ways. That's exactly the point Mel made in the ABC
interview, and which Catholics have pointed out for decades.
Well, NOW Mark goes along with the Pope....



Paul
Stephen Glynn
2004-02-27 11:00:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.
his repetitive defense when its come to justifying every single
sequence in his movie has been that he has not invented anything, that
'its all in the bible'. christopher hitchens, in an article in vanity
fair, says: 'it seems like gibson thought the gospels were written by
eyewitness accounts. perhaps he doesnt know that the gospels were
written years after christ's death and that in them intervened many
different hands.'
gibson's said his main sources were the bible and two nuns: saint
maría de ágreda and anne catherine emmerich. the first one, spanish,
wrote in the 17th century that the guilt would follow the jewish
people, punished with 'horrible impurity'. the second, a german of the
19th century, had a vision in which she saved a jewish woman from
purgatory. that woman confessed to her how the jews killed christian
children and used their bowels to prepare the bread for jewish easter.
the vision was one of the favourite antisemitic illustrations for the
nazis.
Hitchens is certainly correct about the textual history of the Gospels.
However his criticism misses the point in the sense that while the Gospels
certainly aren't "eyewitness accounts" they are still what Christians read.
It's how you read them. Obviously no one thinks Shakespeare's "Hamlet" is
an eyewitness account of anything. However "it's all in the text" is no
defence against the criticism that a particular production of the play is
wrongheaded or perverse. ISTR "it's all in the text" was the precise
justification offered by the very offended director of a completely insane
production of "Macbeth" starring the unfortunate Peter O'Toole some 20
years ago. It was hailed, quite rightly, by all the critics as the
funniest thing on in the West End at the time.

It's a particular problem with film versions of the Bible since film is a
very direct and concrete medium in the way that the written word isn't.
I've no idea whether Jesus actually attended a wedding at Canaa and turned
water into wine when the booze started to run out (though I'm sure He could
have done) and I don't particularly care. That's not the point of the
story. However if you put the episode on film then what you see is an
apparent real event. However while you see the miracle you lose its
symbolic and metaphorical importance. Similarly, I've no idea if someone
actually got robbed and beaten by thieves on his way from Jerusalem to
Jericho and a good Samaritan helped him out but put it on film and you get
to see a mugging rather than a parable.

I've not seen Gibson's film but if he has actually produced an anti-semitic
reading of the New Testament it's one that's got nothing to do with
mainstream contemporary Christian doctrine in general and contemporary
Catholic doctrine in particular.

See http://atheism.about.com/b/a/032940.htm

Steve
Mark Johnson
2004-02-27 16:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Hitchens is certainly correct about the textual history of the Gospels.
The guy probably doesn't have a clue.
Post by Stephen Glynn
However his criticism misses the point in the sense that while the Gospels
certainly aren't "eyewitness accounts" they are still what Christians read.
Consider it faithfully recorded oral tradition, maybe one generation
removed from those actually involved. It depends on when you prefer to
date each Gospel.
Post by Stephen Glynn
It's how you read them. Obviously no one thinks Shakespeare's "Hamlet" is
an eyewitness account of anything.
It's not represented as such. It's a play.
Post by Stephen Glynn
However "it's all in the text" is no
defence against the criticism that a particular production of the play is
wrongheaded or perverse.
That might be because it's a hammy production, or high school play
where the kids simply aren't old enough to effectively play the roles,
except for the younger characters.
Post by Stephen Glynn
It's a particular problem with film versions of the Bible since film is a
very direct and concrete medium in the way that the written word isn't.
A picture being worth a thousand words? Well, Gibson researched the
film, as he does all his films. It will be interesting to hear the
voice commentary on the DVD to see why he chose this or that. There
was some license taken. But the violent Roman scourgings can be
deduced from Scriptures and other records of the time. If a cohort was
needed to accompany Our Lord and the two thieves, then that's a lot of
soldiers. And there didn't seem that many in the film (but there never
are in such films). And so on.
Post by Stephen Glynn
I've no idea whether Jesus actually attended a wedding at Canaa and turned
water into wine when the booze
You mean, wine. Not whiskey - wine. Not beer - wine.
Post by Stephen Glynn
have done) and I don't particularly care.
You don't care if a Man, Who walked this earth, was able to go over to
a large jar of water and turn it instantly into the finest wine you
can't even buy on the store shelves, today? You wouldn't care?

Probably a few winemakers would.
Post by Stephen Glynn
That's not the point of the
story. However if you put the episode on film then what you see is an
apparent real event. However while you see the miracle you lose its
symbolic and metaphorical importance.
Not in this film. The ear is replaced in the garden. And the guard for
the Temple is transformed. But you see the same transformation
throughout from this Roman soldier or that.
Post by Stephen Glynn
Similarly, I've no idea if someone
actually got robbed and beaten by thieves on his way from Jerusalem to
Jericho and a good Samaritan helped him out but put it on film and you get
to see a mugging rather than a parable.
I've not seen Gibson's film but if he has actually produced an anti-semitic
reading of the New Testament it's one that's got nothing to do with
mainstream contemporary Christian doctrine in general and contemporary
Catholic doctrine in particular.
Depends if you think "contemporary catholic doctrine" is not merely
doctrinal, but Catholic. Dogma hasn't been changed in the last 30
years. So you don't mean doctrine so much as, excuses, I think.
Anti-semitism is a phony charge against this film. The famous scene in
the crowd where they take whatever punishment upon themselves for
demanding Christ's execution was actually taken out. Maybe it will be
in the DVD, at least in the deleted scenes.


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.
s***@yahspamoos.com
2004-02-27 18:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Depends if you think "contemporary catholic doctrine" is not merely
doctrinal, but Catholic. Dogma hasn't been changed in the last 30
years. So you don't mean doctrine so much as, excuses, I think.
Anti-semitism is a phony charge against this film. The famous scene in
the crowd where they take whatever punishment upon themselves for
demanding Christ's execution was actually taken out. Maybe it will be
in the DVD, at least in the deleted scenes.
Not true. The scene is still there, the subtitles are taken
out. The publicity Gibson generated by removing, putting
back in and then just removing the subtitle was worth millions.
Mark Johnson
2004-02-28 04:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahspamoos.com
Post by Mark Johnson
Depends if you think "contemporary catholic doctrine" is not merely
doctrinal, but Catholic. Dogma hasn't been changed in the last 30
years. So you don't mean doctrine so much as, excuses, I think.
Anti-semitism is a phony charge against this film. The famous scene in
the crowd where they take whatever punishment upon themselves for
demanding Christ's execution was actually taken out. Maybe it will be
in the DVD, at least in the deleted scenes.
Not true. The scene is still there, the subtitles are taken
out.
I'll have to go see it again, then. I was planning to do so, at any
rate. And I'm DEFINITELY getting the DVD. I gotta hear the commentary.
Should be interesting.


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
2004-02-28 08:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Stephen Glynn
Hitchens is certainly correct about the textual history of the Gospels.
The guy probably doesn't have a clue.
Post by Stephen Glynn
However his criticism misses the point in the sense that while the Gospels
certainly aren't "eyewitness accounts" they are still what Christians read.
Consider it faithfully recorded oral tradition, maybe one generation
removed from those actually involved. It depends on when you prefer to
date each Gospel.
Post by Stephen Glynn
It's how you read them. Obviously no one thinks Shakespeare's "Hamlet" is
an eyewitness account of anything.
It's not represented as such. It's a play.
Post by Stephen Glynn
However "it's all in the text" is no
defence against the criticism that a particular production of the play is
wrongheaded or perverse.
That might be because it's a hammy production, or high school play
where the kids simply aren't old enough to effectively play the roles,
except for the younger characters.
Post by Stephen Glynn
It's a particular problem with film versions of the Bible since film is a
very direct and concrete medium in the way that the written word isn't.
A picture being worth a thousand words? Well, Gibson researched the
film, as he does all his films. It will be interesting to hear the
voice commentary on the DVD to see why he chose this or that. There
was some license taken. But the violent Roman scourgings can be
deduced from Scriptures and other records of the time. If a cohort was
needed to accompany Our Lord and the two thieves, then that's a lot of
soldiers. And there didn't seem that many in the film (but there never
are in such films). And so on.
Post by Stephen Glynn
I've no idea whether Jesus actually attended a wedding at Canaa and turned
water into wine when the booze
You mean, wine. Not whiskey - wine. Not beer - wine.
Post by Stephen Glynn
have done) and I don't particularly care.
You don't care if a Man, Who walked this earth, was able to go over to
a large jar of water and turn it instantly into the finest wine you
can't even buy on the store shelves, today? You wouldn't care?
Probably a few winemakers would.
Post by Stephen Glynn
That's not the point of the
story. However if you put the episode on film then what you see is an
apparent real event. However while you see the miracle you lose its
symbolic and metaphorical importance.
Not in this film. The ear is replaced in the garden. And the guard for
the Temple is transformed. But you see the same transformation
throughout from this Roman soldier or that.
Post by Stephen Glynn
Similarly, I've no idea if someone
actually got robbed and beaten by thieves on his way from Jerusalem to
Jericho and a good Samaritan helped him out but put it on film and you get
to see a mugging rather than a parable.
I've not seen Gibson's film but if he has actually produced an anti-semitic
reading of the New Testament it's one that's got nothing to do with
mainstream contemporary Christian doctrine in general and contemporary
Catholic doctrine in particular.
Depends if you think "contemporary catholic doctrine" is not merely
doctrinal, but Catholic. Dogma hasn't been changed in the last 30
years. So you don't mean doctrine so much as, excuses, I think.
Anti-semitism is a phony charge against this film. The famous scene in
the crowd where they take whatever punishment upon themselves for
demanding Christ's execution was actually taken out.
Hey, Mark would have been chanting along with the crowd for it, had
be been there....going along with what the mob wants is how Mark lives his
life.


Paul
JNugent
2004-02-28 12:22:32 UTC
Permalink
***@ntlworld.com wrote:

[ ... ]
Post by Stephen Glynn
Hitchens is certainly correct about the textual history of the
Gospels.
Well, he *might* be.

Since he himself is effectively saying "no-one knows for sure", the most he
can claim is that what he claims *might* be right and accurate. Otherwise,
he'd have to be saying "no-one except me can be sure".
Post by Stephen Glynn
However his criticism misses the point in the sense that
while the Gospels certainly aren't "eyewitness accounts" they are
still what Christians read. It's how you read them. Obviously no
one thinks Shakespeare's "Hamlet" is an eyewitness account of
anything. However "it's all in the text" is no defence against the
criticism that a particular production of the play is wrongheaded or
perverse. ISTR "it's all in the text" was the precise justification
offered by the very offended director of a completely insane
production of "Macbeth" starring the unfortunate Peter O'Toole some
20 years ago. It was hailed, quite rightly, by all the critics as
the funniest thing on in the West End at the time.
I saw it - it was *very* poorly directed.

Mind you, the Banquo ghost scenes are often badly handled in production -
audiences often laugh at the appearance of the bloodied Martin Shaw in the
Roman Polanski film.
Post by Stephen Glynn
It's a particular problem with film versions of the Bible since film
is a very direct and concrete medium in the way that the written word
isn't. I've no idea whether Jesus actually attended a wedding at
Canaa and turned water into wine when the booze started to run out
(though I'm sure He could have done) and I don't particularly care.
That's not the point of the story. However if you put the episode
on film then what you see is an apparent real event. However while
you see the miracle you lose its symbolic and metaphorical
importance. Similarly, I've no idea if someone actually got robbed
and beaten by thieves on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho and a good
Samaritan helped him out
No, Steve, that was a story made up to illustrate a point - and was never
claimed as a fact by the teller...
Post by Stephen Glynn
but put it on film and you get to see a mugging rather than a parable.
Well, the main point comes *after* the robbery.
Post by Stephen Glynn
I've not seen Gibson's film
I think I shall make a point of seeing it. I've always been a sucker for
Roman, Greek and Biblical epics (going back to the days of "Ben Hur",
"Cleopatra", the Steve Reeves "Hercules" series and "The Ten
Commandments") - always loved them and can't wait for promised new rash of
them later this year.
Post by Stephen Glynn
but if he has actually produced an anti-
semitic reading of the New Testament it's one that's got nothing to
do with mainstream contemporary Christian doctrine in general and
contemporary Catholic doctrine in particular.
I can't see how it is possible to produce a film about the topic without
showing the (Jewish) crowd in some sort of a bad light, even if it just the
crowd scenes and the high priests.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.598 / Virus Database: 380 - Release Date: 28/02/04
Welsh Witch
2004-02-27 11:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.
his repetitive defense when its come to justifying every single
sequence in his movie has been that he has not invented anything, that
'its all in the bible'. christopher hitchens, in an article in vanity
fair, says: 'it seems like gibson thought the gospels were written by
eyewitness accounts. perhaps he doesnt know that the gospels were
written years after christ's death and that in them intervened many
different hands.'
gibson's said his main sources were the bible and two nuns: saint
maría de ágreda and anne catherine emmerich. the first one, spanish,
wrote in the 17th century that the guilt would follow the jewish
people, punished with 'horrible impurity'. the second, a german of the
19th century, had a vision in which she saved a jewish woman from
purgatory. that woman confessed to her how the jews killed christian
children and used their bowels to prepare the bread for jewish easter.
the vision was one of the favourite antisemitic illustrations for the
nazis.
***************************************************
Apart from anything else if the write ups are anything to go by I absolutely
couldn't sit and watch two hours of gratuitous sadism as perhaps one would;
for it might well have been true as we see so much of the same thing even
now in that same area.
There is no way whatsoever that we can know the truth or otherwise of the
story. The Bible has been subjected to the thoughts and interference of so
many "councils"....Whatever happened to the book of Jasher? Most
interesting!
The Book of Jasher is a "lost book" mentioned in the Bible (Joshua 10:13 &
2Sam. 1:18).

How many more bits have been excised and how many more put in...source etc.

If you look at the film as an entertainment that's one thing but accepting
it hook line and sinker as a truth defies all common sense.

Peter Hitchens seems to have a very strange take on some things too. I think
I can see where he's going then all of a sudden he appears to run out of
steam or resolution and does a volte face:-)







http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/councillor.htm

http://www.atcoalition.cjb.net/
Mark Johnson
2004-02-27 17:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Welsh Witch
Apart from anything else if the write ups are anything to go by I absolutely
couldn't sit and watch two hours of gratuitous sadism as perhaps one would;
It's not two hours. A good part of the film is the suffering in the
garden, the arrest, Peter's denials, the secret night trials by the
Temple leadership, and so on.

But when they start in with the cat of nine tails whips, then it gets
very violent. Mel shows one of the torturers agressively whipping the
table of the commander, where the barbs dig in to the wood, and he
pulls it straight back and away, ripping large spinters out of the
table. And then they proceed to the same method with Christ still tied
to the whipping post, after receiving the prescribed 40 lashes. After
that, He stands for the infamous 'auction' of Barrabas. But it
continues that way all the way on the Via Dolorosa up to Calvary and
nailing Our Lord to The Cross, until the earthquake. It's expected.
That's how the Bible reads (of course it also talks about the dead
rising, which is not shown). That's the history. There's a difference
between violence and gratuituous violence. The opening to Saving
Private Ryan was violent. Some objected. But most saw it as a
director's effort to portray truth on the screen - from a director not
always known for such a desire.

And the reality of The Passion likely was MORE bloody than you see
depicted onscreen. You probably need CG to get a more faithful
depiction. But this has got to be fairly close, in some ways. It is
the answer to all those who always complained about the barely touched
Christ in previous films, who looked sad and weary, but didn't appear
to be ripped to pieces as described in Scriptures. Plus, while the sky
got dark, I don't know if other films showed an earthquake, mentioned
in Mt. Well, finally, after decades and decades, at the start of the
21st century - here is that film. Of course, it's so narrowly focused
on just the less than 24 hour period, not counting the brief last
scene just moments after the Resurrection, that it gives the sense of
part of a movie. And you wonder what came before, and what comes
after. The before part would make the suffering much more agonizing
for the viewer because they might identify with the screen character,
and even with Christ, Himself.



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.
Frank X
2004-02-27 11:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by monsieurblob
his repetitive defense when its come to justifying every single
sequence in his movie has been that he has not invented anything, that
'its all in the bible'. christopher hitchens, in an article in vanity
fair, says: 'it seems like gibson thought the gospels were written by
eyewitness accounts. perhaps he doesnt know that the gospels were
written years after christ's death and that in them intervened many
different hands.'
I'm not very good at this religous stuff, but weren't the Gospels divinely
inspired, so infact they were contemporary eyewitness accounts, with the
witness being the Lord God Almighty. I thought that it had been a tenet of
many mainstream Christian Sects that the Bible was absolute fundamental
truth. So I don't really understand what the fuss is all about?

As a matter of interest how would it differ from the stuff I was taught in
school in the seventies?
Stephen Glynn
2004-02-27 12:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank X
Post by monsieurblob
his repetitive defense when its come to justifying every single
sequence in his movie has been that he has not invented anything, that
'its all in the bible'. christopher hitchens, in an article in vanity
fair, says: 'it seems like gibson thought the gospels were written by
eyewitness accounts. perhaps he doesnt know that the gospels were
written years after christ's death and that in them intervened many
different hands.'
I'm not very good at this religous stuff, but weren't the Gospels divinely
inspired, so infact they were contemporary eyewitness accounts, with the
witness being the Lord God Almighty. I thought that it had been a tenet of
many mainstream Christian Sects that the Bible was absolute fundamental
truth. So I don't really understand what the fuss is all about?
As a matter of interest how would it differ from the stuff I was taught in
school in the seventies?
Well, what I was taught at school in the 60's and 70's was that while the
Bible is infallible human understanding certainly isn't. Thus it is
possible to misinterpret it.

It's not supposed to be the spiritual equivalent of some Windows error
messages (other doubtless factual but at times utterly incomprehensible
documents).

Steve
Mark Johnson
2004-02-27 17:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Well, what I was taught at school in the 60's and 70's was that while the
Bible is infallible human understanding certainly isn't. Thus it is
possible to misinterpret it.
It's not supposed to be the spiritual equivalent of some Windows error
messages (other doubtless factual but at times utterly incomprehensible
documents).
I think it's true that to those without Faith, Scriptures might make
ABSOLUTELY no sense. This is why the great Doctors and Saints prayed
when considering Scriptures. And they were faithful Catholics, as
well.

To the 'atheist' exegetes, Scriptures are, to their blind way of
thinking, an unholy mess. It makes no sense. That's why they should
not even attempt to explain it. Keep their opinions to themselves,
because they still don't have a clue. They're trying to work it out.
Or else they just don't care for conscience. Don't try to convince
those who do understand, or particularly who are trying to understand,
that everyone has to be dumb like them. It's the conservative pol
complaint against libs, in general - not elevating others, but trying
to bring everyone down to the lowest common terms.


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.
Frank X
2004-02-27 22:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Stephen Glynn
Well, what I was taught at school in the 60's and 70's was that while the
Bible is infallible human understanding certainly isn't. Thus it is
possible to misinterpret it.
It's not supposed to be the spiritual equivalent of some Windows error
messages (other doubtless factual but at times utterly incomprehensible
documents).
I think it's true that to those without Faith, Scriptures might make
ABSOLUTELY no sense. This is why the great Doctors and Saints prayed
when considering Scriptures. And they were faithful Catholics, as
well.
To the 'atheist' exegetes, Scriptures are, to their blind way of
thinking, an unholy mess. It makes no sense. That's why they should
not even attempt to explain it. Keep their opinions to themselves,
because they still don't have a clue. They're trying to work it out.
Or else they just don't care for conscience.
'Atheists' have a different view to you perhaps, but they are people with
views and concerns that deserve respect. It is reasonable for 'atheist'
exegetes to wish to understand religion and the religious so that they can
assess the threat that religion poses to their freedom. And lets not pretend
religion is not a threat to freedom, history is clear that it is.

A classic case is Judaism which gave birth to the idea that it was OK to
annex land in the Middle East and indulge in a spot of ethnic cleansing,
because God said it was their land. How they have the front to complain
about another's religious beliefs beats me?

Yep, I'm an anti-Semite ;o) but I despise Christians even more (lets not
even discuss Islam). The Roman Catholics also have years of religious
oppression under their belt, the inquisition, crusades etc. Even today they
are covering up their priests abuse of children.
Post by Mark Johnson
Don't try to convince
those who do understand, or particularly who are trying to understand,
that everyone has to be dumb like them. It's the conservative pol
complaint against libs, in general - not elevating others, but trying
to bring everyone down to the lowest common terms.
Dumb/ Elevate / lowest what do you mean? Would you be happier if we suffered
earthly punishment for our disbelief?

PS. Regardless of our differences of belief I liked and trusted your
description of the film, it sounded like crap, I'll give it a miss, It
sounded far to graphically violent and not very profound.
Mark Johnson
2004-02-28 04:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank X
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Stephen Glynn
Well, what I was taught at school in the 60's and 70's was that while the
Bible is infallible human understanding certainly isn't. Thus it is
possible to misinterpret it.
It's not supposed to be the spiritual equivalent of some Windows error
messages (other doubtless factual but at times utterly incomprehensible
documents).
I think it's true that to those without Faith, Scriptures might make
ABSOLUTELY no sense. This is why the great Doctors and Saints prayed
when considering Scriptures. And they were faithful Catholics, as
well.
To the 'atheist' exegetes, Scriptures are, to their blind way of
thinking, an unholy mess. It makes no sense. That's why they should
not even attempt to explain it. Keep their opinions to themselves,
because they still don't have a clue. They're trying to work it out.
Or else they just don't care for conscience.
'Atheists' have a different view to you perhaps, but they are people with
views and concerns that deserve respect.
Do they show respect, in turn? Mmmm. . . .

Besides, if I think they are wrong, then I think they are wrong. If I
think they are clueless, same thing. I can respect a reasonable
opinion. But I would characterize one that isn't, or that is sloppy
and ignorant, just that way.
Post by Frank X
It is reasonable for 'atheist'
exegetes to wish to understand religion and the religious so that they can
assess the threat that religion poses to their freedom.
What threat does Christ pose to your . . 'chosen lifestyle', or
whatever your problem is?
Post by Frank X
A classic case is Judaism which gave birth to the idea that it was OK to
annex land in the Middle East
By God's design and direction. It's in-the-Bible. They were the chosen
people. And look how they behaved. You can get a sense of it, at least
the proud leadership types, in Mel's movie. That's what got people so
worked up, until they couldn't make the anti-semitism charge stick.
And frankly, I think people are getting just a little fed up with ADL
types. You can only cry wolf so many times.
Post by Frank X
Yep, I'm an anti-Semite
That's your problem, then. Get over it.
Post by Frank X
Post by Mark Johnson
Don't try to convince
those who do understand, or particularly who are trying to understand,
that everyone has to be dumb like them. It's the conservative pol
complaint against libs, in general - not elevating others, but trying
to bring everyone down to the lowest common terms.
Dumb/ Elevate / lowest what do you mean?
What . .ev . . ER . . do I mean, huh?

Let's read that together, you and me, right now:

It's the conservative pol complaint against libs, in general - not
elevating others, but trying to bring everyone down to the lowest
common terms.
Post by Frank X
PS. Regardless of our differences of belief I liked and trusted your
description of the film, it sounded like crap
Well, of course, you wouldn't like it. It's a religious issue with
you. This isn't like other movies. People who see this, and watch the
trailers, shake their heads. You could see it in the audience. It
really hits home how trivial the blockbusters really are. I like Nemo,
for instance, as a really good film. I've got the double CD. But it's
trivial. The Passion puts it all in perspective. It's a great film,
with some flaws, about a part of the greatest events in human history.
It takes a real insight to even want to tackle that subject, much less
imbue it with such emotion and craftsmanship as you got from Mel, and
the various actors. Not just anyone could make this film. It almost
had to be a 'traditionalist' Catholic - which is all Catholics were
prior to the mid-60s, or least the mid-50s.

Anyway - of course you wouldn't like it. It's about God. Boo- God,
right? Well, free will and all. It means choosing for God, or not for
God.


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
2004-02-28 08:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Frank X
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Stephen Glynn
Well, what I was taught at school in the 60's and 70's was that while the
Bible is infallible human understanding certainly isn't. Thus it is
possible to misinterpret it.
It's not supposed to be the spiritual equivalent of some Windows error
messages (other doubtless factual but at times utterly incomprehensible
documents).
I think it's true that to those without Faith, Scriptures might make
ABSOLUTELY no sense. This is why the great Doctors and Saints prayed
when considering Scriptures. And they were faithful Catholics, as
well.
To the 'atheist' exegetes, Scriptures are, to their blind way of
thinking, an unholy mess. It makes no sense. That's why they should
not even attempt to explain it. Keep their opinions to themselves,
because they still don't have a clue. They're trying to work it out.
Or else they just don't care for conscience.
'Atheists' have a different view to you perhaps, but they are people with
views and concerns that deserve respect.
Do they show respect, in turn? Mmmm. . . .
Besides, if I think they are wrong, then I think they are wrong. If I
think they are clueless, same thing. I can respect a reasonable
opinion. But I would characterize one that isn't, or that is sloppy
and ignorant, just that way.
Post by Frank X
It is reasonable for 'atheist'
exegetes to wish to understand religion and the religious so that they can
assess the threat that religion poses to their freedom.
What threat does Christ pose to your . . 'chosen lifestyle', or
whatever your problem is?
Post by Frank X
A classic case is Judaism which gave birth to the idea that it was OK to
annex land in the Middle East
By God's design and direction. It's in-the-Bible. They were the chosen
people. And look how they behaved. You can get a sense of it, at least
the proud leadership types, in Mel's movie. That's what got people so
worked up, until they couldn't make the anti-semitism charge stick.
And frankly, I think people are getting just a little fed up with ADL
types. You can only cry wolf so many times.
Post by Frank X
Yep, I'm an anti-Semite
That's your problem, then. Get over it.
Post by Frank X
Post by Mark Johnson
Don't try to convince
those who do understand, or particularly who are trying to understand,
that everyone has to be dumb like them. It's the conservative pol
complaint against libs, in general - not elevating others, but trying
to bring everyone down to the lowest common terms.
Dumb/ Elevate / lowest what do you mean?
What . .ev . . ER . . do I mean, huh?
It's the conservative pol complaint against libs, in general - not
elevating others, but trying to bring everyone down to the lowest
common terms.
The only thing elevated that relates to this film is Mark's penis...
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Frank X
PS. Regardless of our differences of belief I liked and trusted your
description of the film, it sounded like crap
Well, of course, you wouldn't like it. It's a religious issue with
you. This isn't like other movies. People who see this, and watch the
trailers, shake their heads. You could see it in the audience. It
really hits home how trivial the blockbusters really are. I like Nemo,
for instance, as a really good film. I've got the double CD. But it's
trivial. The Passion puts it all in perspective. It's a great film,
with some flaws, about a part of the greatest events in human history.
It takes a real insight to even want to tackle that subject, much less
imbue it with such emotion and craftsmanship as you got from Mel, and
the various actors. Not just anyone could make this film. It almost
had to be a 'traditionalist' Catholic - which is all Catholics were
prior to the mid-60s, or least the mid-50s.
I say ti also HAD tro be someone like Mel Gibson...posessing more
material reward than 99 percent of the world, yet somehow foolish enough to
think it's all just God's blessing unto him.
Post by Mark Johnson
Anyway - of course you wouldn't like it. It's about God. Boo- God,
right? Well, free will and all. It means choosing for God, or not for
God.
When was the last time God ever chose FOR YOU, Mark...I assure you, I
can't think when He did for me.




Paul
Matthew Robb
2004-02-29 20:16:19 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:07:56 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
To the 'atheist' exegetes, Scriptures are, to their blind way of
thinking, an unholy mess. It makes no sense. That's why they should
not even attempt to explain it. Keep their opinions to themselves,
because they still don't have a clue. They're trying to work it out.
Or else they just don't care for conscience. Don't try to convince
those who do understand, or particularly who are trying to understand,
Dear God, no.

Don't challenge the blind. (And especially not those trying to put
their eyes out)

cheers

matt
wbarwell
2004-02-29 21:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Robb
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:07:56 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
To the 'atheist' exegetes, Scriptures are, to their blind way of
thinking, an unholy mess. It makes no sense. That's why they should
not even attempt to explain it. Keep their opinions to themselves,
because they still don't have a clue. They're trying to work it out.
Or else they just don't care for conscience. Don't try to convince
those who do understand, or particularly who are trying to understand,
Dear God, no.
Don't challenge the blind. (And especially not those trying to put
their eyes out)
You guys are no challenge. The 'scriptures' are masses of contradictory
lies and foolish nonsense.
Mark claims that Jesus appeared to his apostles in their house in
Jerusalem, and then ascended to heaven immediately.
Matthew claims Jesus told hsi apostles to meet him in Galilee, which they
did.
Acts claims Jesus wandered around jerusalem 40 days and then ascended
to heaven from Bethany, a city outside of Jerusalem. John says Jesus
met his apostles in Jerusalem, and then told them to go to Galilee, and
does not mention an ascension to heaven.

Obviously, the bible is written by liars who contradict each others lies.
You clowns are simply too stupid to notice.

Jesus told his follwers he'd preside over the end of the world and
judgement day itself.
Matthew 16:27-8, Matthew 25:31-45.
And not 1900 years later, but in the times of "This generation" (Matth
24;36, Mark 16, Luke 21),
in the times of "Some standing here", Matthew 16:27-8, in the lifetime
of the high priest at Jerusalem (Matthew 24:30, Matthew 26:64)

It did not happen as 'prophecied". Its the ultimate waste of time, 1900
years of whacked out religous kookery. Strictly for unthinking rubes and
patsies.

Even if somebody with brains points it out and rubs the noses of assorted
religous kooks in this, you still don't have the mental capacity to learn
from having your faces rubbed forcefully in the stupidity of it all.

Its like trying to teach geometry to a pig.
Thoroughly indoctrinated from a young age, you are now incapable of
intelligent thought on the subject.
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun
in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I chose to better myself and learn to fly airplanes."
- George W. Bush May 1984 to the Houston Chronicle


Cheerful Charlie
Kathy Cole
2004-02-27 13:50:14 UTC
Permalink
(Please note followups.)
Post by Frank X
I'm not very good at this religous stuff, but weren't the Gospels
divinely inspired, so infact they were contemporary eyewitness
accounts, with the witness being the Lord God Almighty.
That is a position of faith, not one that will resolve questions of
historical accuracy.
Andrew Fenton
2004-02-27 16:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank X
I'm not very good at this religous stuff, but weren't the Gospels divinely
inspired, so infact they were contemporary eyewitness accounts, with the
witness being the Lord God Almighty.
No.

At least, there's no evidence of that. Won't stop millions believing it till
the grave, of course.
Mark Johnson
2004-02-27 17:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank X
I'm not very good at this religous stuff, but weren't the Gospels divinely
inspired, so infact they were contemporary eyewitness accounts, with the
witness being the Lord God Almighty.
No.
Not Divinely inspired?

Do you even believe that there WAS . . a Second Temple, just for a
start? I mean, there's no photos of it. No film on it. So?

Do you believe that Christ, the God-Man, walked this earth, in our
reality, in this world, roughly two millenia ago?


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.
Andrew Fenton
2004-02-27 17:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Do you believe that Christ, the God-Man, walked this earth, in our
reality, in this world, roughly two millenia ago?
I believe there's adequate evidence that a man named Christ existed.
God-man? I need some evidence for such a gigantic claim.
Mark Johnson
2004-02-28 04:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Mark Johnson
Do you believe that Christ, the God-Man, walked this earth, in our
reality, in this world, roughly two millenia ago?
I believe there's adequate evidence that a man named Christ existed.
God-man? I need some evidence for such a gigantic claim.
Rose from the dead? Said He was God? The great promised Messiah?
Remember what the Temple priesthood thought about that?

So . . you know the facts. And like Pilate, or Herod (who apparently
became buds after the incident), and like the Temple which continued
to offer the bloody Sacrifice even after God, Himself, destroyed the
Temple and tore the curtain of the Holy of Holies, you can ignore it
all, or be like some of the guards, other Jews, and whoever was moved
to conversion even during the hours of The Passion, as somewhat even
depicted in the film. You have that free will. That's why we're here.
That's the purpose of life. Choose God and His Church, and really mean
it in every way - or choose, otherwise. Change your life for the
better.



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
2004-02-28 08:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Mark Johnson
Do you believe that Christ, the God-Man, walked this earth, in our
reality, in this world, roughly two millenia ago?
I believe there's adequate evidence that a man named Christ existed.
God-man? I need some evidence for such a gigantic claim.
Rose from the dead? Said He was God? The great promised Messiah?
Remember what the Temple priesthood thought about that?
So . . you know the facts. And like Pilate, or Herod (who apparently
became buds after the incident), and like the Temple which continued
to offer the bloody Sacrifice even after God, Himself, destroyed the
Temple and tore the curtain of the Holy of Holies, you can ignore it
all, or be like some of the guards, other Jews, and whoever was moved
to conversion even during the hours of The Passion, as somewhat even
depicted in the film. You have that free will. That's why we're here.
That's the purpose of life. Choose God and His Church, and really mean
it in every way - or choose, otherwise. Change your life for the
better.
Mel knows that will only happen when he gives me a nice chunk
of change...



Paul
Andrew Fenton
2004-02-28 10:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Rose from the dead? Said He was God? The great promised Messiah?
No, I said evidence, not myths.
Mark Johnson
2004-02-28 16:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Mark Johnson
Rose from the dead? Said He was God? The great promised Messiah?
No, I said evidence, not myths.
I don't know what you could mean by that? Didn't you say it likely
that there was a Jesus Christ. If so, then isn't it likely he was
brutally executed by the Roman authority at the insistence of the
Temple leadership who accused Him of claiming to be the great promised
Messiah? I mean, just take it a step at a time. The Scriptures record
various miracles He performed. These are the same that record portions
of His Life. You'd have to say part was correct, part was wrong, with
a pattern of obvious deception so that all who followed Christ and
died for His sake would have had to know it was all a lie. People
don't go to die for what they know is a fraud. Whether General Regulus
(from City of God) to the Muslim hoardes that threatened all of
Christendom, all believed in their creeds, even if those creeds were
wrong.


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.
Andrew Fenton
2004-02-28 16:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
I don't know what you could mean by that? Didn't you say it likely
that there was a Jesus Christ. If so, then isn't it likely he was
brutally executed by the Roman authority at the insistence of the
Temple leadership who accused Him of claiming to be the great promised
Messiah?
Doesn't mean there was any truth to it. So-called religious leaders are
executed the world over, not because of their other-worldly powers but
because they are seen to be formenting a rebellion in the real world.
Post by Mark Johnson
I mean, just take it a step at a time. The Scriptures record
various miracles He performed.
That's not evidence, it's just a bunch of myths.
Post by Mark Johnson
These are the same that record portions
of His Life. You'd have to say part was correct, part was wrong, with
a pattern of obvious deception so that all who followed Christ and
died for His sake would have had to know it was all a lie. People
don't go to die for what they know is a fraud.
Perhaps they were just deceived also? This also is rather common throughout
history - just look at all those suicide cults recently.
Mark Johnson
2004-02-28 18:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Mark Johnson
I don't know what you could mean by that? Didn't you say it likely
that there was a Jesus Christ. If so, then isn't it likely he was
brutally executed by the Roman authority at the insistence of the
Temple leadership who accused Him of claiming to be the great promised
Messiah?
Doesn't mean there was any truth to it.
So you say they accused an Innocent Man?
Post by Andrew Fenton
So-called religious leaders are
executed the world over, not because of their other-worldly powers but
because they are seen to be formenting a rebellion in the real world.
Or are said to be doing so - falsely accused? It wasn't an open
rebellion they feared so much as a rebellion against Phariseeism and
the like; a challenge to what they'd built up over the generations, in
the hearts and minds of the Jewish people. Instead, even as you see in
Mel's Passion, they themselves became the rabble and those promising
open rebellion against the occupying Empire. Ultimately, in open
revolt, they were crushed by the Empire, and scattered. Temple-based
Judaism had to become something else. But there are those promising a
return to a Temple-based Judaism, if only they can build the Third
Temple.
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Mark Johnson
I mean, just take it a step at a time. The Scriptures record
various miracles He performed.
That's not evidence, it's just a bunch of myths.
Post by Mark Johnson
These are the same that record portions
of His Life. You'd have to say part was correct, part was wrong, with
a pattern of obvious deception so that all who followed Christ and
died for His sake would have had to know it was all a lie. People
don't go to die for what they know is a fraud.
Perhaps they were just deceived also?
All of them? Deceived how? They were there. Many were eye witnesses to
these events.

How do you explain that? Or are you afraid to try, more likely?
Post by Andrew Fenton
history - just look at all those suicide cults recently.
But there's no comparison. Again, see the questions, above. Answer
those.


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.
Andrew Fenton
2004-02-28 18:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
So you say they accused an Innocent Man?
It's not unknown.
Post by Mark Johnson
All of them? Deceived how? They were there. Many were eye witnesses to
these events.
Name them.
Post by Mark Johnson
But there's no comparison. Again, see the questions, above. Answer
those.
Sure there is. Lots of people declaring personal experience of supernatural
occurences. Strangely enough, most of them seem to be completely barking.
Mark Johnson
2004-02-29 05:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Mark Johnson
So you say they accused an Innocent Man?
It's not unknown.
Particularly if Pilate was not a man of courage. What is truth?
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Mark Johnson
All of them? Deceived how? They were there. Many were eye witnesses to
these events.
Name them.
Obviously, just for one, the Apostles. You want the names of the
Apostles?


Peace.

-----------------------

"[There] are countless people who pretend not
to hate Christ, but subtly demote him to the
rank of a 'great moral teacher,' or say they
have nothing against Christianity as long as
the 'separation of church and state' is observed,
or, under the guise of scholarship, affect to
winnow out his 'authentic' utterances from those
falsely ascribed to him as if the Apostles would
have dared to put words in his mouth!"

[Joe Sobran, The Words and Deeds of Christ, NOV 2000,
http://www.sobran.com/wordschrist.shtml ]
Kal Alexander
2004-02-29 07:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Mark Johnson
So you say they accused an Innocent Man?
It's not unknown.
Particularly if Pilate was not a man of courage. What is truth?
What is truth?
Not easy to define.
We both have truths.
Are yours the same as mine?

-Pilate to Jesus, JCSS 2000
--
Later
Kal
--
What if Judas had said "Actually, I'm kinda hungry. I think I'll
stay for dinner."?
Mark Johnson
2004-02-29 17:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Mark Johnson
So you say they accused an Innocent Man?
It's not unknown.
Particularly if Pilate was not a man of courage. What is truth?
What is truth?
Not easy to define.
If one is not a man of courage. Conscience, you know.

Plus, his wife was very insistent. And he may well have trusted her
advice - on other occasions.
Post by Mark Johnson
Later
Kal
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.
Matthew Robb
2004-02-29 20:16:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:30:41 GMT, "Kal Alexander"
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Particularly if Pilate was not a man of courage. What is truth?
What is truth?
Not easy to define.
We both have truths.
Are yours the same as mine?
-Pilate to Jesus, JCSS 2000
Surely

But what is truth
Is truth unchanging law?
we both have truths
Are mine the same as yours?...

:)

cheers

matt
Alan Ferris
2004-02-28 19:57:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Andrew Fenton
So-called religious leaders are
executed the world over, not because of their other-worldly powers but
because they are seen to be formenting a rebellion in the real world.
Or are said to be doing so - falsely accused? It wasn't an open
rebellion they feared so much as a rebellion against Phariseeism and
the like; a challenge to what they'd built up over the generations, in
the hearts and minds of the Jewish people. Instead, even as you see in
Mel's Passion, they themselves became the rabble and those promising
open rebellion against the occupying Empire.
Jesus is just one of hundreds of rebels killed in the same manner in
the same small area, in the same few decades.


--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Mark Johnson
2004-02-29 05:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Andrew Fenton
So-called religious leaders are
executed the world over, not because of their other-worldly powers but
because they are seen to be formenting a rebellion in the real world.
Or are said to be doing so - falsely accused? It wasn't an open
rebellion they feared so much as a rebellion against Phariseeism and
the like; a challenge to what they'd built up over the generations, in
the hearts and minds of the Jewish people. Instead, even as you see in
Mel's Passion, they themselves became the rabble and those promising
open rebellion against the occupying Empire.
Jesus is just one of hundreds of rebels killed
So you say he wasn't an Innocent Man?


Peace.
Alan Ferris
2004-02-29 12:20:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:44:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Andrew Fenton
So-called religious leaders are
executed the world over, not because of their other-worldly powers but
because they are seen to be formenting a rebellion in the real world.
Or are said to be doing so - falsely accused? It wasn't an open
rebellion they feared so much as a rebellion against Phariseeism and
the like; a challenge to what they'd built up over the generations, in
the hearts and minds of the Jewish people. Instead, even as you see in
Mel's Passion, they themselves became the rabble and those promising
open rebellion against the occupying Empire.
Jesus is just one of hundreds of rebels killed
So you say he wasn't an Innocent Man?
No he was not innocent. He knowingly did things that were against the
current laws. Does that make him a bad man is a totally different
question. But something I am sure is beyond yer ken.


--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Mark Johnson
2004-02-29 17:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:44:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
Jesus is just one of hundreds of rebels killed
So you say he wasn't an Innocent Man?
No he was not innocent. He knowingly did things that were against the
current laws.
So what mistake did Pilate make, exactly, in declaring Jesus Christ
innocent? even though Pilate, pressured by the Jewish mob, even still
ordered Our Lord's Crucifixion?

What didn't he get? He was a top Roman authority in that area. Or
frankly, even in the Sanhedrin. Caiphas rips his robe as a symbol of
condemnation. But . . for what? What part of the Law did Our Lord
violate?


Peace.

---------------------------------------

One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.

[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
Alan Ferris
2004-02-29 18:13:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:41:41 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:44:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
Jesus is just one of hundreds of rebels killed
So you say he wasn't an Innocent Man?
No he was not innocent. He knowingly did things that were against the
current laws.
So what mistake did Pilate make, exactly, in declaring Jesus Christ
innocent? even though Pilate, pressured by the Jewish mob, even still
ordered Our Lord's Crucifixion?
He was innocent of roman laws. I know such complicated concepts are
beyond you. But really this is all available for the first grade
reader.

Or you could wait for the DVD and have Mel explain it all to you. We
know you like to get your history from movies.
Post by Mark Johnson
What didn't he get? He was a top Roman authority in that area. Or
frankly, even in the Sanhedrin. Caiphas rips his robe as a symbol of
condemnation. But . . for what? What part of the Law did Our Lord
violate?
Lots of religious laws. If you are unaware of them, why are you a
Christian? Surely you are aware of the laws given to Moses by God.


--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Mark Johnson
2004-02-29 19:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:41:41 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:44:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
He was innocent of roman laws.
Alright. So - what's the problem?
Post by Alan Ferris
Or you could wait for the DVD and have Mel explain it all to you.
You should give that a shot, yourself.
Post by Alan Ferris
know you like to get your history from movies.
When did I ever say that?
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
What didn't he get? He was a top Roman authority in that area. Or
frankly, even in the Sanhedrin. Caiphas rips his robe as a symbol of
condemnation. But . . for what? What part of the Law did Our Lord
violate?
Lots of religious laws.
Whose religion, as it were? God's . . or that of the Temple
priesthood? Did the Temple priesthood ever say that THEY were the
givers of The Law? or did they claim it came from God? Do you think
Our Lord came to break His Own Law?

Our Lord said He was the great promised Messiah. And - He was. He
actually was, and is.

Again, what's the problem?


Peace.
Alan Ferris
2004-03-01 18:32:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:42:40 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:41:41 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:44:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
He was innocent of roman laws.
Alright. So - what's the problem?
Post by Alan Ferris
Or you could wait for the DVD and have Mel explain it all to you.
You should give that a shot, yourself.
Sorry, no. I prefer real historians to movie stars.
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
know you like to get your history from movies.
When did I ever say that?
When you claimed Mel's documentary on Braveheart as your source for
your knowledge on Scottish History. I asked you to read some real
historians, you claimed "Mel" was good enough.
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
What didn't he get? He was a top Roman authority in that area. Or
frankly, even in the Sanhedrin. Caiphas rips his robe as a symbol of
condemnation. But . . for what? What part of the Law did Our Lord
violate?
Lots of religious laws.
Whose religion, as it were? God's . . or that of the Temple
priesthood? Did the Temple priesthood ever say that THEY were the
givers of The Law? or did they claim it came from God? Do you think
Our Lord came to break His Own Law?
Our Lord said He was the great promised Messiah. And - He was. He
actually was, and is.
Are you so unaware of the laws given to the Jews? Or are you unaware
of that he was Jewish?


--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Mark Johnson
2004-03-01 22:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:42:40 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:41:41 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:44:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
He was innocent of roman laws.
Alright. So - what's the problem?
Post by Alan Ferris
Or you could wait for the DVD and have Mel explain it all to you.
You should give that a shot, yourself.
Sorry, no. I prefer real historians to movie stars.
Maybe you prefer neither. History isn't exactly a strong subject, for
you. As I said, in researching Braveheart, Mel and his staff probably
have forgotten more of the detailed history than you might ever learn.
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
know you like to get your history from movies.
When did I ever say that?
When you claimed Mel's documentary on Braveheart as your source for
your knowledge on Scottish History.
You would have claimed that. You're getting very confused. I pointed
out that Mel explains the discrepancy in his commentary. You're play
acting, here, like Andy Rooney, criticizing the commentary, the film,
without ever hearing it. But all those names, places and dates that I
gave you, on this, in various messages were gathered from books and
the web. And it doesn't contradict what Mel said. Like I said, he knew
the history. He just didn't think it always 'played well' on film.
Fortunately, he stuck very close to the 'script' when it came to The
Passion.
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Whose religion, as it were? God's . . or that of the Temple
priesthood? Did the Temple priesthood ever say that THEY were the
givers of The Law? or did they claim it came from God? Do you think
Our Lord came to break His Own Law?
Our Lord said He was the great promised Messiah. And - He was. He
actually was, and is.
Are you so unaware of the laws given to the Jews?
No, go ahead.

Enlighten me. You were a bit short on the history of Scotland. I'm
guessing that's even more the case when it comes to the Life of
Christ.


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.
Alan Ferris
2004-03-02 19:17:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:40:00 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:42:40 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:41:41 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:44:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
He was innocent of roman laws.
Alright. So - what's the problem?
Post by Alan Ferris
Or you could wait for the DVD and have Mel explain it all to you.
You should give that a shot, yourself.
Sorry, no. I prefer real historians to movie stars.
Maybe you prefer neither. History isn't exactly a strong subject, for
you. As I said, in researching Braveheart, Mel and his staff probably
have forgotten more of the detailed history than you might ever learn.
ROFLMAO! This from the man who used two actors to voice and opinion
on scottish history!
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
know you like to get your history from movies.
When did I ever say that?
When you claimed Mel's documentary on Braveheart as your source for
your knowledge on Scottish History.
You would have claimed that. You're getting very confused. I pointed
out that Mel explains the discrepancy in his commentary. You're play
acting, here, like Andy Rooney, criticizing the commentary, the film,
without ever hearing it. But all those names, places and dates that I
gave you, on this, in various messages were gathered from books and
the web. And it doesn't contradict what Mel said. Like I said, he knew
the history. He just didn't think it always 'played well' on film.
Fortunately, he stuck very close to the 'script' when it came to The
Passion.
See this is your falling down. You think that Mels changing of the
battles is all that was changed. You cannot see beyond the history as
Mel depicted.

Try picking up a book and reading about the true History of Scotland
and Wallace. Then we might talk. I doubt even if you know if Wallace
was a Highland farmer of a gentleman of the Court.
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Whose religion, as it were? God's . . or that of the Temple
priesthood? Did the Temple priesthood ever say that THEY were the
givers of The Law? or did they claim it came from God? Do you think
Our Lord came to break His Own Law?
Our Lord said He was the great promised Messiah. And - He was. He
actually was, and is.
Are you so unaware of the laws given to the Jews?
No, go ahead.
Enlighten me. You were a bit short on the history of Scotland. I'm
guessing that's even more the case when it comes to the Life of
Christ.
ROFLMAO! I quoted you two items of scottish history and in each case
you ignored them.

Will you do the same when I suggest you read your bible for the laws?
Do you need chapter and verse? Start with Moses and his stroll up a
mountain. Follow all those nice rules that god told his hebrew
tribesmen to follow.

Or do you not own a bible?


--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Mark Johnson
2004-03-03 07:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Ferris
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:40:00 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:42:40 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:41:41 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:44:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
He was innocent of roman laws.
Alright. So - what's the problem?
Post by Alan Ferris
Or you could wait for the DVD and have Mel explain it all to you.
You should give that a shot, yourself.
Sorry, no. I prefer real historians to movie stars.
Maybe you prefer neither. History isn't exactly a strong subject, for
you. As I said, in researching Braveheart, Mel and his staff probably
have forgotten more of the detailed history than you might ever learn.
ROFLMAO! This from the man who used two actors to voice and opinion
on scottish history!
Again, don't project your ignorance of history onto me. I'm the one
who gave you the names, the places, the dates, that likely went right
over your head.

Read. Learn.
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
know you like to get your history from movies.
When did I ever say that?
When you claimed Mel's documentary on Braveheart as your source for
your knowledge on Scottish History.
You would have claimed that. You're getting very confused. I pointed
out that Mel explains the discrepancy in his commentary. You're play
acting, here, like Andy Rooney, criticizing the commentary, the film,
without ever hearing it. But all those names, places and dates that I
gave you, on this, in various messages were gathered from books and
the web. And it doesn't contradict what Mel said. Like I said, he knew
the history. He just didn't think it always 'played well' on film.
Fortunately, he stuck very close to the 'script' when it came to The
Passion.
See this is your falling down. You think that Mels changing of the
battles is all that was changed. You cannot see beyond the history as
Mel depicted.
I never said that. In fact, I gave you the history, in some detail. If
you didn't want to read that, that's not my fault. And Mel explains
the decisions he made in the film, and what the true history really
was, to some extent. As I wrote, he and his staff likely have
forgotten more about the history of William Wallace than someone like
you will likely ever be able to learn. Seriously.
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Whose religion, as it were? God's . . or that of the Temple
priesthood? Did the Temple priesthood ever say that THEY were the
givers of The Law? or did they claim it came from God? Do you think
Our Lord came to break His Own Law?
Our Lord said He was the great promised Messiah. And - He was. He
actually was, and is.
Are you so unaware of the laws given to the Jews?
No, go ahead.
Enlighten me. You were a bit short on the history of Scotland. I'm
guessing that's even more the case when it comes to the Life of
Christ.
Do you need chapter and verse? Start with Moses and his stroll up a
mountain. Follow all those nice rules that god told his hebrew
tribesmen to follow.
The Decalogue? Alright - fine. How did Our Lord violate The Decalogue?

What in the world are you even trying to say? What are you bitchin
about, now?


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.
Alan Ferris
2004-03-07 11:47:08 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 23:12:14 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:40:00 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:42:40 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:41:41 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:44:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
He was innocent of roman laws.
Alright. So - what's the problem?
Post by Alan Ferris
Or you could wait for the DVD and have Mel explain it all to you.
You should give that a shot, yourself.
Sorry, no. I prefer real historians to movie stars.
Maybe you prefer neither. History isn't exactly a strong subject, for
you. As I said, in researching Braveheart, Mel and his staff probably
have forgotten more of the detailed history than you might ever learn.
ROFLMAO! This from the man who used two actors to voice and opinion
on scottish history!
Again, don't project your ignorance of history onto me. I'm the one
who gave you the names, the places, the dates, that likely went right
over your head.
ROFLMAO!
Just what went over my head. I pointed out that Mel had numerous
errors, you kept demanding that I watch his DVD for the answers :)
Post by Mark Johnson
Read. Learn.
I do, that is why I ignore the history of "Mel" and prefer the history
taught by esteemed scholars.
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
know you like to get your history from movies.
When did I ever say that?
When you claimed Mel's documentary on Braveheart as your source for
your knowledge on Scottish History.
You would have claimed that. You're getting very confused. I pointed
out that Mel explains the discrepancy in his commentary. You're play
acting, here, like Andy Rooney, criticizing the commentary, the film,
without ever hearing it. But all those names, places and dates that I
gave you, on this, in various messages were gathered from books and
the web. And it doesn't contradict what Mel said. Like I said, he knew
the history. He just didn't think it always 'played well' on film.
Fortunately, he stuck very close to the 'script' when it came to The
Passion.
See this is your falling down. You think that Mels changing of the
battles is all that was changed. You cannot see beyond the history as
Mel depicted.
I never said that. In fact, I gave you the history, in some detail. If
you didn't want to read that, that's not my fault. And Mel explains
the decisions he made in the film, and what the true history really
was, to some extent. As I wrote, he and his staff likely have
forgotten more about the history of William Wallace than someone like
you will likely ever be able to learn. Seriously.
So why is it you could never answer any of my questions about wallace?
Or about who he was fighting with?

Do you even know who commanded the army he fought with. You always
dodged that one. Was it because "Mel's DVD" did not mention it?
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Whose religion, as it were? God's . . or that of the Temple
priesthood? Did the Temple priesthood ever say that THEY were the
givers of The Law? or did they claim it came from God? Do you think
Our Lord came to break His Own Law?
Our Lord said He was the great promised Messiah. And - He was. He
actually was, and is.
Are you so unaware of the laws given to the Jews?
No, go ahead.
Enlighten me. You were a bit short on the history of Scotland. I'm
guessing that's even more the case when it comes to the Life of
Christ.
Do you need chapter and verse? Start with Moses and his stroll up a
mountain. Follow all those nice rules that god told his hebrew
tribesmen to follow.
The Decalogue? Alright - fine. How did Our Lord violate The Decalogue?
What in the world are you even trying to say? What are you bitchin
about, now?
ROFLMAO. I do love the way you get lost the minute people talk to you
about religion.


--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Mark Johnson
2004-03-07 11:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Ferris
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 23:12:14 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:40:00 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:42:40 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:41:41 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:44:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
Maybe you prefer neither. History isn't exactly a strong subject, for
you. As I said, in researching Braveheart, Mel and his staff probably
have forgotten more of the detailed history than you might ever learn.
ROFLMAO! This from the man who used two actors to voice and opinion
on scottish history!
Again, don't project your ignorance of history onto me. I'm the one
who gave you the names, the places, the dates, that likely went right
over your head.
ROFLMAO!
Just what went over my head.
Apparently everything I write, that you never read.

I can only tell you so many times.
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Read. Learn.
I do
By which you meant - you never do.

You should start - for your own good.
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
When you claimed Mel's documentary on Braveheart as your source for
your knowledge on Scottish History.
You would have claimed that. You're getting very confused. I pointed
out that Mel explains the discrepancy in his commentary. You're play
acting, here, like Andy Rooney, criticizing the commentary, the film,
without ever hearing it. But all those names, places and dates that I
gave you, on this, in various messages were gathered from books and
the web. And it doesn't contradict what Mel said. Like I said, he knew
the history. He just didn't think it always 'played well' on film.
Fortunately, he stuck very close to the 'script' when it came to The
Passion.
See this is your falling down. You think that Mels changing of the
battles is all that was changed. You cannot see beyond the history as
Mel depicted.
I never said that. In fact, I gave you the history, in some detail. If
you didn't want to read that, that's not my fault. And Mel explains
the decisions he made in the film, and what the true history really
was, to some extent. As I wrote, he and his staff likely have
forgotten more about the history of William Wallace than someone like
you will likely ever be able to learn. Seriously.
So why is it you could never answer any of my questions about wallace?
I not only told you about Wallace, but gave you names and dates and
places that you could look into, yourself, since you didn't seem to
have a clue about what happened.
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Are you so unaware of the laws given to the Jews?
No, go ahead.
Enlighten me. You were a bit short on the history of Scotland. I'm
guessing that's even more the case when it comes to the Life of
Christ.
Do you need chapter and verse? Start with Moses and his stroll up a
mountain. Follow all those nice rules that god told his hebrew
tribesmen to follow.
The Decalogue? Alright - fine. How did Our Lord violate The Decalogue?
What in the world are you even trying to say? What are you bitchin
about, now?
ROFLMAO.
Some argument you got there.


You know - that question was phrased as a question. It was intended as
a question.

Did you not understand the question? If you just don't understand this
material - ask. Just ask.

All you have to do is ask.



Peace.

--------------------

. . . "art" inspired by nothing
fades to nothingness soon enough.

[Michelle Malkin, 24 NOV 2000
(discussing Marilyn Manson)]
Paul Duca
2004-03-07 17:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 23:12:14 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:40:00 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:42:40 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:41:41 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:44:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
Maybe you prefer neither. History isn't exactly a strong subject, for
you. As I said, in researching Braveheart, Mel and his staff probably
have forgotten more of the detailed history than you might ever learn.
ROFLMAO! This from the man who used two actors to voice and opinion
on scottish history!
Again, don't project your ignorance of history onto me. I'm the one
who gave you the names, the places, the dates, that likely went right
over your head.
ROFLMAO!
Just what went over my head.
Apparently everything I write, that you never read.
I can only tell you so many times.
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Read. Learn.
I do
By which you meant - you never do.
You should start - for your own good.
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
When you claimed Mel's documentary on Braveheart as your source for
your knowledge on Scottish History.
You would have claimed that. You're getting very confused. I pointed
out that Mel explains the discrepancy in his commentary. You're play
acting, here, like Andy Rooney, criticizing the commentary, the film,
without ever hearing it. But all those names, places and dates that I
gave you, on this, in various messages were gathered from books and
the web. And it doesn't contradict what Mel said. Like I said, he knew
the history. He just didn't think it always 'played well' on film.
Fortunately, he stuck very close to the 'script' when it came to The
Passion.
See this is your falling down. You think that Mels changing of the
battles is all that was changed. You cannot see beyond the history as
Mel depicted.
I never said that. In fact, I gave you the history, in some detail. If
you didn't want to read that, that's not my fault. And Mel explains
the decisions he made in the film, and what the true history really
was, to some extent. As I wrote, he and his staff likely have
forgotten more about the history of William Wallace than someone like
you will likely ever be able to learn. Seriously.
So why is it you could never answer any of my questions about wallace?
I not only told you about Wallace, but gave you names and dates and
places that you could look into, yourself, since you didn't seem to
have a clue about what happened.
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
Are you so unaware of the laws given to the Jews?
No, go ahead.
Enlighten me. You were a bit short on the history of Scotland. I'm
guessing that's even more the case when it comes to the Life of
Christ.
Do you need chapter and verse? Start with Moses and his stroll up a
mountain. Follow all those nice rules that god told his hebrew
tribesmen to follow.
The Decalogue? Alright - fine. How did Our Lord violate The Decalogue?
What in the world are you even trying to say? What are you bitchin
about, now?
ROFLMAO.
Some argument you got there.
You know - that question was phrased as a question. It was intended as
a question.
Did you not understand the question? If you just don't understand this
material - ask. Just ask.
All you have to do is ask.
And God, as He always does, never bothers to answer...



Paul
wbarwell
2004-02-29 21:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Alan Ferris
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Andrew Fenton
So-called religious leaders are
executed the world over, not because of their other-worldly powers but
because they are seen to be formenting a rebellion in the real world.
Or are said to be doing so - falsely accused? It wasn't an open
rebellion they feared so much as a rebellion against Phariseeism and
the like; a challenge to what they'd built up over the generations, in
the hearts and minds of the Jewish people. Instead, even as you see in
Mel's Passion, they themselves became the rabble and those promising
open rebellion against the occupying Empire.
Jesus is just one of hundreds of rebels killed
So you say he wasn't an Innocent Man?
If you believe the NT, Jesus wandered around, encouraging people to abandon
families, businesses, lands, and to sit around waiting for the end of the
world and judgement day that Jesus promised would be soon, in "this
generation" (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13, Luke 21), in the liftimes of "Some
standing here..." (Matthew 16:27-8), in the lifetime if the high priest at
Jerusalem (Matthew 24:30, Matthew 26:64).
Jesus promised that those who so abandoned homes and lands would be
recompensated 100 times over in the new heavenly order to arise after
judgment day.

He was a disruptive religous kook, and the Romans rather disliked such
disruption. That is why they later came down real hard on Christianity
when it spread to the cities.
Later the RCC took that up, being even more harsh on such movements as
the Cathars, Savaranola, the Anabaptists, and the like.

Innocent? No. He was a truely disruptive kook who used the misery oand
hopes of the ignorant poor to cause them to do foolish things.
he had teh misfortune to do this in a time where such was not tolerated by
the Romans, when Pilate, a notable asshole ran things there, when harsh
punishments were the rule, not the exception.

And his promise the end of the world (Matthew 24;3) was near, and
that judgment day was upon us, he was dead wrong anyway.
A 1900 year long waste of time.
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun
in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I chose to better myself and learn to fly airplanes."
- George W. Bush May 1984 to the Houston Chronicle


Cheerful Charlie
Matthew Robb
2004-02-29 20:16:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:02:34 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Mark Johnson
Rose from the dead? Said He was God? The great promised Messiah?
No, I said evidence, not myths.
I don't know what you could mean by that? Didn't you say it likely
that there was a Jesus Christ. If so, then isn't it likely he was
brutally executed by the Roman authority at the insistence of the
Temple leadership who accused Him of claiming to be the great promised
Messiah?
Or something similar
Post by Mark Johnson
I mean, just take it a step at a time. The Scriptures record
various miracles He performed.
No. They record some stories.


cheers

matt
Matthew Robb
2004-02-29 20:16:19 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:24:46 -0800, Mark Johnson
Post by Mark Johnson
Post by Andrew Fenton
I believe there's adequate evidence that a man named Christ existed.
God-man? I need some evidence for such a gigantic claim.
Rose from the dead?
Limited evidence at best
Post by Mark Johnson
Said He was God?
So did the Yorkshire Ripper
Post by Mark Johnson
The great promised Messiah?
Remember what the Temple priesthood thought about that?
So?


cheers

matt
Mark Johnson
2004-02-27 16:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by monsieurblob
gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.
his repetitive defense when its come to justifying every single
sequence in his movie has been that he has not invented anything
Well, he did, or at least followed some suggestions of the visionaries
you mention, below.
Post by monsieurblob
'its all in the bible'. christopher hitchens, in an article in vanity
fair, says: 'it seems like gibson thought the gospels were written by
eyewitness accounts. perhaps he doesnt know that the gospels were
written years after christ's death and that in them intervened many
different hands.'
This is the same Hitchens that didn't think Mother Teresa should be
called a Saint? I can't imagine what Hitchens imagines Scriptures to
be. My guess, and just my guess, is that it's somewhere between the
exegesis of a militant atheist and a trendy 'theologian' of modern
stripe - asserting some difference, to begin with.
Post by monsieurblob
gibson's said his main sources were the bible and two nuns: saint
maría de ágreda and anne catherine emmerich. the first one, spanish,
wrote in the 17th century that the guilt would follow the jewish
people, punished with 'horrible impurity'. the second, a german of the
19th century, had a vision in which she saved a jewish woman from
purgatory
Who save hundreds of souls from purgatory. Who thought it the worst
thing that even one soul would be lost, Jewish or otherwise.
Post by monsieurblob
that woman confessed to her how the jews killed christian
children and used their bowels to prepare the bread for jewish easter.
the vision was one of the favourite antisemitic illustrations for the
nazis.
So because the Nazi says so, then Emmerich was a Nazi? or had neo-Nazi
sympathies? That's what you so desperately want to say, isn't it? It's
cruel. It's stupid, if so. And it's a flat out logical error. It's the
same error where people attempt to derive the legitimacy of the
apocryphal Enoch from mention of Enoch's prophecy in canonical
Scripture, the Catholic Epistle of Jude. If the mention was of
something apart from the book of Enoch, which seems the context, then
it doesn't apply. But in the unlikely event it referred to the same
lengthy tome, in this case one clearly written by many people at once,
then it doesn't invest the book of Enoch with canonical status simply
because it was mention in canonical Scriptures.

Or looking at it simply another way, that people abuse Scriptures is
simply to say that people can abuse anything, including the visions of
the Saints (though the Catholic Reformed sect is LOATHE to canonize
Anne Emmerich!). That's not the fault of Scriptures. That's not the
fault of the Saints. They are not culpable. Those who abuse them are.

Very basic stuff.


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.
Lila Duncan
2004-02-27 16:35:13 UTC
Permalink
On 27 Feb 2004 01:33:19 -0800, ***@hotmail.com (monsieurblob)
wrote:

I wouldn't credit Mr Gibson with having given history or the Bible too much
consideration. Perhaps taken in isolation it might be considered that this
film was motivated by some kind of religious fervour, no matter how ill
informed and intentioned. But looking back at Mr Gibson's earlier efforts,
its easy to see something of an anti-social pattern developing.

Not so long ago he took a major part in a film that was clearly intended
to inflame old enmities between the Scots and the English. The name of the
film currently escapes me, probably due to it's mediocrity. The story was
so crudely and erroneously plotted that the only socio/political effect was
that a few impressionable football fans took to painting their faces blue
for a while. Apart from that the effects were negligible.

However, from recent progressions, it's clear to see where Mr Gibson is
'coming from'. He's feeling some dissatisfaction with laying waste to
humanity only in cinematic fantasies. He's now becoming desperate to
promote disharmony, distress and carnage in the real world.
Why not try a large dose of Viagra and take yourself in hand Mr Gibson?
Your energies would be more appropriately directed by this method.
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.
his repetitive defense when its come to justifying every single
sequence in his movie has been that he has not invented anything, that
'its all in the bible'. christopher hitchens, in an article in vanity
fair, says: 'it seems like gibson thought the gospels were written by
eyewitness accounts. perhaps he doesnt know that the gospels were
written years after christ's death and that in them intervened many
different hands.'
gibson's said his main sources were the bible and two nuns: saint
maría de ágreda and anne catherine emmerich. the first one, spanish,
wrote in the 17th century that the guilt would follow the jewish
people, punished with 'horrible impurity'. the second, a german of the
19th century, had a vision in which she saved a jewish woman from
purgatory. that woman confessed to her how the jews killed christian
children and used their bowels to prepare the bread for jewish easter.
the vision was one of the favourite antisemitic illustrations for the
nazis.
--
Lila
Welsh Witch
2004-02-27 19:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lila Duncan
I wouldn't credit Mr Gibson with having given history or the Bible too much
consideration. Perhaps taken in isolation it might be considered that this
film was motivated by some kind of religious fervour, no matter how ill
informed and intentioned. But looking back at Mr Gibson's earlier efforts,
its easy to see something of an anti-social pattern developing.
Not so long ago he took a major part in a film that was clearly intended
to inflame old enmities between the Scots and the English. The name of the
film currently escapes me, probably due to it's mediocrity. The story was
so crudely and erroneously plotted that the only socio/political effect was
that a few impressionable football fans took to painting their faces blue
for a while. Apart from that the effects were negligible.
However, from recent progressions, it's clear to see where Mr Gibson is
'coming from'. He's feeling some dissatisfaction with laying waste to
humanity only in cinematic fantasies. He's now becoming desperate to
promote disharmony, distress and carnage in the real world.
Why not try a large dose of Viagra and take yourself in hand Mr Gibson?
Your energies would be more appropriately directed by this method.
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.
his repetitive defense when its come to justifying every single
sequence in his movie has been that he has not invented anything, that
'its all in the bible'. christopher hitchens, in an article in vanity
fair, says: 'it seems like gibson thought the gospels were written by
eyewitness accounts. perhaps he doesnt know that the gospels were
written years after christ's death and that in them intervened many
different hands.'
gibson's said his main sources were the bible and two nuns: saint
maría de ágreda and anne catherine emmerich. the first one, spanish,
wrote in the 17th century that the guilt would follow the jewish
people, punished with 'horrible impurity'. the second, a german of the
19th century, had a vision in which she saved a jewish woman from
purgatory. that woman confessed to her how the jews killed christian
children and used their bowels to prepare the bread for jewish easter.
the vision was one of the favourite antisemitic illustrations for the
nazis.
--
Lila
*****************************************************
A little note.......there was an article in one of the papers apparently Mel
Gibson's father gave a long anti-semetic tirade when talking about the
film?????

I guess its a good idea to see it before making too many noises about it (if
it can be suffered)
Of course one will identify with the central character, or wonder what it
would hvae felt like for the man one loves to be in such a position...that's
the idea isn't it and it may just be too much.
Whatever else I expect it will have a powerful effect on the viewer...one
way or another.

The Last Temptation of Chist caused a huge furore in this town and was not
screened owing to the many objections by the local clergy....Then there was
the poem printed in Private Eye under the outmoded blasphemy law..Religion
"people fight for it die for it everything but live for it :-)
bam
2004-02-28 05:38:37 UTC
Permalink
If it were Gibson's intention to stir up anti-semitic fervor, one wonders
why he left out the part where the Jews yell, "Let His blood be upon us and
our children!" And also, the part where Jesus says to the women,

Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not over me; but for yourselves and for your
children. For behold, the days shall come, wherein they will say: Blessed
are the barren and the wombs that have not borne and the paps that have not
given suck.
Looks like he downplayed it to me.

BAM
Post by Lila Duncan
I wouldn't credit Mr Gibson with having given history or the Bible too much
consideration. Perhaps taken in isolation it might be considered that this
film was motivated by some kind of religious fervour, no matter how ill
informed and intentioned. But looking back at Mr Gibson's earlier efforts,
its easy to see something of an anti-social pattern developing.
Not so long ago he took a major part in a film that was clearly intended
to inflame old enmities between the Scots and the English. The name of the
film currently escapes me, probably due to it's mediocrity. The story was
so crudely and erroneously plotted that the only socio/political effect was
that a few impressionable football fans took to painting their faces blue
for a while. Apart from that the effects were negligible.
However, from recent progressions, it's clear to see where Mr Gibson is
'coming from'. He's feeling some dissatisfaction with laying waste to
humanity only in cinematic fantasies. He's now becoming desperate to
promote disharmony, distress and carnage in the real world.
Why not try a large dose of Viagra and take yourself in hand Mr Gibson?
Your energies would be more appropriately directed by this method.
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.
his repetitive defense when its come to justifying every single
sequence in his movie has been that he has not invented anything, that
'its all in the bible'. christopher hitchens, in an article in vanity
fair, says: 'it seems like gibson thought the gospels were written by
eyewitness accounts. perhaps he doesnt know that the gospels were
written years after christ's death and that in them intervened many
different hands.'
gibson's said his main sources were the bible and two nuns: saint
maría de ágreda and anne catherine emmerich. the first one, spanish,
wrote in the 17th century that the guilt would follow the jewish
people, punished with 'horrible impurity'. the second, a german of the
19th century, had a vision in which she saved a jewish woman from
purgatory. that woman confessed to her how the jews killed christian
children and used their bowels to prepare the bread for jewish easter.
the vision was one of the favourite antisemitic illustrations for the
nazis.
--
Lila
+ (€ R.L. Measures)
2004-02-29 09:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by bam
If it were Gibson's intention to stir up anti-semitic fervor, one wonders
why he left out the part where the Jews yell, "Let His blood be upon us and
our children!" And also, the part where Jesus says to the women,
Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not over me; but for yourselves and for your
children. For behold, the days shall come, wherein they will say: Blessed
are the barren and the wombs that have not borne and the paps that have not
given suck.
Looks like he downplayed it to me.
BAM
** Good points. Not only that, the spoken Aramaic and Latin were
seemingly a Holywood (sic) prop to hopefully impart credibility and
increase box office take..
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
Adventurer
2004-02-28 21:03:57 UTC
Permalink
...a german of the
19th century, had a vision in which she saved a jewish woman from
purgatory. that woman confessed to her how the jews killed christian
children and used their bowels to prepare the bread for jewish easter.
the vision was one of the favourite antisemitic illustrations for the
nazis.
This is gross. Maybe that's why the Jews were targeted by Adolf?
(Adventurer)


On 27 Feb 2004 01:33:19 -0800, ***@hotmail.com (monsieurblob)
wrote:

"However, from recent progressions, it's clear to see where Mr Gibson
is
'coming from'. He's feeling some dissatisfaction with laying waste to
humanity only in cinematic fantasies. He's now becoming desperate to
promote disharmony, distress and carnage in the real world."

You need glasses! Gibson's not the one whining - it's the Jews. What
a bunch of crybabies. If they wouldn't have gotten so needlessly
upset by their perceived notions of the movie, perhaps Mel wouldn't be
getting such grand attention for his movie. The Jews are ultimately
the ones who are "promoting disharmony, distress and carnage in the
real world." They even made a movie about Jesus having an affair with
Mary Magdeline - never heard any whining from the Christians about
that false ugliness. Face it: We are hearing the Jews chanting their
anti-semitic mantra so much because they own the media!

A little side tidbit: Did you know that there have been nearly 3 times
as many Palestinians killed than Israelis? Probably not. Why?
Obvious, my dear.

p.s. I have great respect for the higher level of religious truths,
but keep in mind, religions are man-made, God is not.
(Adventurer)
Sajo Markecz
2004-02-27 22:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.
his repetitive defense when its come to justifying every single
sequence in his movie has been that he has not invented anything, that
'its all in the bible'. christopher hitchens, in an article in vanity
fair, says: 'it seems like gibson thought the gospels were written by
eyewitness accounts. perhaps he doesnt know that the gospels were
written years after christ's death and that in them intervened many
different hands.'
gibson's said his main sources were the bible and two nuns: saint
maría de ágreda and anne catherine emmerich. the first one, spanish,
wrote in the 17th century that the guilt would follow the jewish
people, punished with 'horrible impurity'. the second, a german of the
19th century, had a vision in which she saved a jewish woman from
purgatory. that woman confessed to her how the jews killed christian
children and used their bowels to prepare the bread for jewish easter.
the vision was one of the favourite antisemitic illustrations for the
nazis.
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 .
bam
2004-02-28 05:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.
his repetitive defense when its come to justifying every single
sequence in his movie has been that he has not invented anything, that
'its all in the bible'. christopher hitchens, in an article in vanity
fair, says: 'it seems like gibson thought the gospels were written by
eyewitness accounts. perhaps he doesnt know that the gospels were
written years after christ's death and that in them intervened many
different hands.'
gibson's said his main sources were the bible and two nuns: saint
maría de ágreda and anne catherine emmerich. the first one, spanish,
wrote in the 17th century that the guilt would follow the jewish
people, punished with 'horrible impurity'. the second, a german of the
19th century, had a vision in which she saved a jewish woman from
purgatory. that woman confessed to her how the jews killed christian
children and used their bowels to prepare the bread for jewish easter.
the vision was one of the favourite antisemitic illustrations for the
nazis.
So where does Kevin Bacon come in?

BAM
KeithW
2004-02-28 08:23:36 UTC
Permalink
In article <d97b2c14.0402270133.1a0f84c4
@posting.google.com>, ***@hotmail.com says...
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.
The power of God is evident in this fact. He can use
even the imperfect to transmit his word. Look at Peter.
It is easy for us to relate to his nature full of flaws.
We see in him our own flaws. What better leader of the
kingdom on earth than someone so full of flaws? Most of
us would have picked Paul, if we were the Lord. However,
it would not show, nearly as much, the great power of
the Holy Spirit if Paul had been leader. The power of
God is magnified infinitely in the fact that God can
take an imperfect vessel and preserve his word. God can
take me and use me, the sinful man that I am, to show
his infinite majesty. The same is true of Mel Gibson.
bam
2004-02-29 06:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by KeithW
In article <d97b2c14.0402270133.1a0f84c4
@posting.google.com>, ***@hotmail.com says...
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.
The power of God is evident in this fact. He can use
even the imperfect to transmit his word. Look at Peter.
It is easy for us to relate to his nature full of flaws.
We see in him our own flaws. What better leader of the
kingdom on earth than someone so full of flaws? Most of
us would have picked Paul, if we were the Lord. However,
it would not show, nearly as much, the great power of
the Holy Spirit if Paul had been leader. The power of
God is magnified infinitely in the fact that God can
take an imperfect vessel and preserve his word. God can
take me and use me, the sinful man that I am, to show
his infinite majesty. The same is true of Mel Gibson.
In fact, though, Peter was the best of the bunch. Peter stepped off the boat
and walked on water for a few moments. When Peter denied Jesus, he had at
least attempted to get near Jesus, while (as far as we know) the other
Apostles had run for the hills.

BAM
jose soplar
2004-02-29 00:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.
his repetitive defense when its come to justifying every single
sequence in his movie has been that he has not invented anything, that
'its all in the bible'. christopher hitchens, in an article in vanity
fair, says: 'it seems like gibson thought the gospels were written by
eyewitness accounts. perhaps he doesnt know that the gospels were
written years after christ's death and that in them intervened many
different hands.'
gibson's said his main sources were the bible and two nuns: saint
maría de ágreda and anne catherine emmerich. the first one, spanish,
wrote in the 17th century that the guilt would follow the jewish
people, punished with 'horrible impurity'. the second, a german of the
19th century, had a vision in which she saved a jewish woman from
purgatory. that woman confessed to her how the jews killed christian
children and used their bowels to prepare the bread for jewish easter.
the vision was one of the favourite antisemitic illustrations for the
nazis.
Another antiSimetic liar! Go kiss your copy of Hitler's portrait.
bam
2004-03-02 16:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by jose soplar
Post by monsieurblob
the following sort of summarising yet another crisis for the
christians or conservatives (same thing really).
gibson, who belongs to an extremist catholic group, is being
criticised not only for playing with the 'dangerous flames of
antisemitism', but also, above anything else, for being an ignorant.
his repetitive defense when its come to justifying every single
sequence in his movie has been that he has not invented anything, that
'its all in the bible'. christopher hitchens, in an article in vanity
fair, says: 'it seems like gibson thought the gospels were written by
eyewitness accounts. perhaps he doesnt know that the gospels were
written years after christ's death and that in them intervened many
different hands.'
gibson's said his main sources were the bible and two nuns: saint
maría de ágreda and anne catherine emmerich. the first one, spanish,
wrote in the 17th century that the guilt would follow the jewish
people, punished with 'horrible impurity'. the second, a german of the
19th century, had a vision in which she saved a jewish woman from
purgatory. that woman confessed to her how the jews killed christian
children and used their bowels to prepare the bread for jewish easter.
the vision was one of the favourite antisemitic illustrations for the
nazis.
Another antiSimetic liar! Go kiss your copy of Hitler's portrait.
Communista?

BAM
r wiley
2004-04-18 03:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by monsieurblob
a german of the
19th century, had a vision in which she saved a jewish woman from
purgatory. that woman confessed to her how the jews killed christian
children and used their bowels to prepare the bread for jewish easter.
Jewish Easter?

rw
Rob Duncan
2004-04-18 06:17:01 UTC
Permalink
a german of the
Post by r wiley
Post by monsieurblob
19th century, had a vision in which she saved a jewish woman from
purgatory. that woman confessed to her how the jews killed christian
children and used their bowels to prepare the bread for jewish easter.
Jewish Easter?
rw
Sure. Havent you heard of our Kosher bunny? lol


Rob

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...