The Passion of the Christ

[Y2A]

Do you think that the movie is anti-semitic???

As for me, I think it is not. It is historical fact that the jews of that time played a huge role in the death of Christ and I think that people just have to deal with that. Should the Germans be angry over Nazi movies because it makes people dislike Germans? And for the fanatical christans that are angry over the Jews over this should get over it aswell. It was 2004 years ago! Deal with it.

Anyway, I'll probably see it this weekend, should be good.

[elijahcraig]

Christians should thank Jews. Without Jews, Christianity is completely useless.

It was very common in paganism/animism (which judaism and christianity arose from, and catholocism still uses today) for the tribe (in this case jews) to have to murder the father, the godking, godman, or whatever you want to call it in order to rejuvenate existence itself. In this case, Jesus' death not only regenerated the existence of the jewish tribe itself, but also of all of humanity.

The jews were merely acting as the urizen-clad tribe of lynchers which is necessary to make Jesus a godking or archetype, and not just another guy who walked around saying nice stuff to stupid people.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:25 PM
Christians should thank Jews. Without Jews, Christianity is completely useless.
Exactly! If the Jews and Romans didn't help in putting Jesus on the cross, they would have no religon.

[Commie Girl]

:) I do not believe the movie is anti-semetic.


People keep forgetting that Jesus himself was a Jew, and the people were under brutal Roman occupation. For their very own survival they turned on Jesus....that is what I believe history teaches, does it not?

Sounds like an interesting take on histroy (the movie). You'll have to give us a critique!

And I agree, Christianity would not be anything without the Jews!

[Rasta Sapian]

exactly, because there were no christians at that time, christ was creating something new, he died so that we could be releived of our sins. He was profit spreading the word of god and of jewish/messinite/romanian background.

It's not ment to be taken in anti-semenic terms at all, if anything it is a portrayal of the evolution of judaism, at least for christians anyway :)

peace yall

[Individual]

Thank god I don't believe in god! (Wait, does that sound correct? haha) Or I would be in an uproar over this damn movie.

Let's profit on God! Not like it isn't being done everyday in churches across the globe, however now industries are capitalize on the biggest hoax of our time. Anything for a buck.

I truly believe all of the controversy is there only marketing scheme. How do you attract religious folk to a screening that is profiting off of what you believe. The only way, involve controversy and lightning and how it all has meaning.

How do you attract athiests to a screening concerning God? Involve controversy of course, everyone will want to see it.

I swear that this is their marketing strategy, it really could be nothing else.

[el_profe]

I remember hearing a "christians" friend saying that jews deserved what had happened to them because they killed jesus. I swear i wanted to just beat him with a bat, I should of too. Anyway what an ignorant statement to say. I swear, christians,catholics are so fucking hypocritical its not even funny,, I always made fun of the pope and the child molesters (catholic priest) and everyone in my calss (mostly catholics) would get all offended but they never even really followed there religion, but got mad when there religion was insulted.

No the film is not anti-semitic, no one seems to blame the romans for there paret. However i do think that growing anti-semitism in Europe might use this film just to further there cause on why jews are bad (according to them).

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 10:23 PM
Thank god I don't believe in god! (Wait, does that sound correct? haha) Or I would be in an uproar over this damn movie.

Let's profit on God! Not like it isn't being done everyday in churches across the globe, however now industries are capitalize on the biggest hoax of our time. Anything for a buck.

I truly believe all of the controversy is there only marketing scheme. How do you attract religious folk to a screening that is profiting off of what you believe. The only way, involve controversy and lightning and how it all has meaning.

How do you attract athiests to a screening concerning God? Involve controversy of course, everyone will want to see it.

I swear that this is their marketing strategy, it really could be nothing else.
Mel Gibson risked losing millions of dollars on making this film. God, how can a single human being be so credulous.

[YDSofLVA]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 10:23 PM
Let's profit on God! Not like it isn't being done everyday in churches across the globe, however now industries are capitalize on the biggest hoax of our time. Anything for a buck.

I truly believe all of the controversy is there only marketing scheme. How do you attract religious folk to a screening that is profiting off of what you believe. The only way, involve controversy and lightning and how it all has meaning.

How do you attract athiests to a screening concerning God? Involve controversy of course, everyone will want to see it.

I swear that this is their marketing strategy, it really could be nothing else.
Yeh I'd have to say thats about right. If I had heard that a movie was coming out abut Jesus I prolly would have shrugged it off. But now its a controversial possibly anti-semetic movie detailing Gibson's perosnal viewpoint on the death of the religious leader and oh what does it all mean?
DUN DUN DUUNNNNNNN!


And so an otherwise unspectacular movie shall pull in TONS of money.

Poor Jesus. That communist had some great ideas. Too bad his fan club fucked everything up.
I'm lookin at you Bush!

[Individual]

God, how can a single human being be so credulous

I truly hope you did not direct this comment to me.

He risked millions of dollars on the film, so that means it is not capitilizing on God? Every other corporatation out there essentially 'risked' money on their product/s or service, yet they are capitalists. 'Oh, but we trust Mel because he is just soo damn serious about this!'

Capitalism involves risks, so you think that Mel Gibson 'risking' money makes this movie any less of a capitalization on God? And I'm not credible?

I was trying to say that all of this controversy that is in the media, is merely their marketing ploy for this movie. That is the only thing they can do to get a wide turnout. Having Mel Gibson on the Television, with his eyes popping out of his head, like this movie and it's script was sent from God himself.

You basically said it yourself, he risked millions. Therefore, in order to make those millions back, they need a very good marketing scheme. How else to you market a movie on Jesus, without having controversy?

Attack me for being un-credible, yet you believe this is not profiting on God. It's only out there to make the public happy? That is bullshit.

[Y2A]

Big Oil, George W Bush, the BBC corporation, wall street, aliens from mars, and Karl Rove did not come together and create propaganda to brainwash people into seeing this movie. Deal with it.

If you don't like it, don't see it. End of story. We are not talking about how evil capitalism is for once. We are talking about if people feel this movie is anti-semitic. If you don't like it, then make another thread about how evil capitalism is and how superior communism is along with the other 5billion threads about it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I have not and will not see this film, so I cannot make a judgement oin whether or not it is maliciously anti-semetic. Let us not forget that there are people in any group that will claim something is racist against them when in actuality, a half of a brain can see that the notion is a load of bollocks. (you know who you are)

I think Jerry Seinfeld said it best on the tonight show epiosode when he was talking about his uncle Leo claiming everything that bothered him was due to anti-semitism.





Not enough cream cheese in the little cup at the Deli? Damn big-whigs at Philadelphia are fucking Anti Semites!!!



Bad mayo on your sub sandwich? That little turd Jared from Subway is a blatent anti Semite!!



Rain on Yom Kippur? Anti Semitism by god!!!




Please hold off your slags people, it is funny if you think about it.

[El Brujo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 05:20 AM
Do you think that the movie is anti-semitic???

As for me, I think it is not. It is historical fact that the jews of that time played a huge role in the death of Christ and I think that people just have to deal with that. Should the Germans be angry over Nazi movies because it makes people dislike Germans? And for the fanatical christans that are angry over the Jews over this should get over it aswell. It was 2004 years ago! Deal with it.

Anyway, I'll probably see it this weekend, should be good.
Thank you. Im sick of people trying to revise history for the sake of political correctness. The fact is, Jesus was a Jew and was killed in a part of the Roman Empire that happened to be Jewish. Its not "anti-semitism," its a fact. Of course, the ADL dosen't scream when stereotypes are deliberately made about other races (especially Arabs).

[Freiheitfuralle]

Mel Gibson is white. Jesus, assumimg he even exsisted was jewish.
It is known that people of the Jewish faith were predominantly dark-skinned. It is weird in my opinion to cast a whitey as Jesus.

[Liberty Lover]

Something people often forget when condemning the Jews for the death of Jesus is that he was himself Jewish and had no particular desire of establishing a separate religion.

Anyhow, I couldn’t really give a shit who killed the guy or why they did it.


Mel Gibson is white. Jesus, assumimg he even exsisted was jewish.
It is known that people of the Jewish faith were predominantly dark-skinned. It is weird in my opinion to cast a whitey as Jesus.

The Hebrew's of Judea had skin paler than nords.

[redstar2000]

Since I've read the book, I'll skip the movie.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Liberty Lover]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 10:04 AM
Since I've read the book, I'll skip the movie.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
haha

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 07:29 AM
Jesus, assumimg he even exsisted was jewish.
Jesus existed. It is historical fact that he existed. To say he didn't would be like saying Alexander the Great didn't exist.

[Individual]

Y2A.

Jesus may have existed. However show me one sort of proof that does not have to do with the bible or any religious certificate that will acknowledge that Jesus was alive.

From what I understand, there is no proof outside of religion. Therefore why should I trust that Jesus was real, when I don't believe God is real?

I could be wrong on this one, I would just like to see the proof.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 03:10 PM
Y2A.

Jesus may have existed. However show me one sort of proof that does not have to do with the bible or any religious certificate that will acknowledge that Jesus was alive.

From what I understand, there is no proof outside of religion. Therefore why should I trust that Jesus was real, when I don't believe God is real?

I could be wrong on this one, I would just like to see the proof.
:) The proof IS in the Bible...which is basically an Historical Book!

[elijahcraig]

Speaking of books, I think they actually came out with a go-along-with the movie version book. It's selling quite well.

Why would anyone be stupid enough to buy a movie-version versus the bible itself?

[Individual]

Because...

it's America! Why else? They sell everything else, why not a movie version of a book on Jesus?

Hey, it's easy to sell Jesus. Hell everyone knows the name Jesus.

Throw Jesus' name in with some controversy, plop out a movie and a book. Maybe some Jesus' crucifix nails jewelry. You got yourself a big paycheck!

That is why.

[Individual]

The proof IS in the Bible...which is basically an Historical Book!

So wait, you want me to believe that because the bible tells me that man, or any life for that matter, is only 6,000 years old. I should believe the bible? Are you kidding me? Your telling me that the dinosaur bones were from 5,999 years ago. Then they just died off and humans came around all within a year? Why should I believe in the bible, so many contradictions.

I would believe in God before I believed in the bible, and I don't believe in God. So why should I trust the bible? The bible tells me nothing.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Religious propaganda that just used the anti-sematism controversy to increase theatre attendance. That's right folks, the whole controversy is a marketing ploy, accidental or not.

[synthesis]

The Bible is actually used extensively by historians. Many of the book's events did take place in a somewhat less grandiose form.

Off-topic, I thought some people on this board might be interested in a little counter-cultural analysis of certain parts of the bible.

http://www.bluehoney.org/Manna.htm

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 12:10 AM
The Bible is actually used extensively by historians. Many of the book's events did take place in a somewhat less grandiose form.

Off-topic, I thought some people on this board might be interested in a little counter-cultural analysis of certain parts of the bible.

http://www.bluehoney.org/Manna.htm
You expect AQ to believe that the NT bares historical fact? Ha! You'd sooner teach a dog how to speak english. Anyway, DyerMaker and I are right. The bible does bare historical fact.

[Individual]

You'd sooner teach a dog how to speak english

I'm sorry. Is there a problem with my opinion?

Last I checked, it was my opinion, not yours. Were those my words? The bible contains no historical fact? No. I just will not rely on the bible for fact. If it is only the bible that is telling me that something is true, I shall be very skeptical.

Now I am not being ignorant on the subject. I clearly said that I could believe Jesus existed if there was other proof outside of 'God's Word'.

Of course the bible has historical facts in it. If it didn't, people would follow Harry Potter, or the Hobbit as religion. Those that wrote the two testaments had to put historical fact in there, otherwise it would be a fantasy novel. Do you think you would get a wide following of fantasy? This is why there is historical facts in the bible. My point is when it comes to God, and the savior/prophet (whatever Jesus is), I am not going to believe something with only proof from the bible.

Is this so hard to understand? Look at all of the contradictions and false truths that are in the bible, despite historic fact. You should realize why I don't completely trust what the bible has to tell me.

[synthesis]

Jesus may have existed. However show me one sort of proof that does not have to do with the bible or any religious certificate that will acknowledge that Jesus was alive.

A quick Google search got me this. It's rather insignificant, but it appears to validate Jesus's existence regardless.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/

[Individual]

Thank you for the evidence. This is what I was talking about as evidence.

However:


While most scholars agree that Jesus existed, no physical evidence from the first century has ever been conclusively tied with his life.


Some scholars expressed doubt that the box, which is 20 inches long by 11 inches wide, could be definitively linked to Jesus, a Jewish carpenter by trade revered by Christians as the son of God.

"We may never be absolutely certain. In the work I do we're rarely absolutely certain about anything," said Kyle McCarter, a Johns Hopkins University archaeologist, who said that the finding was probable, but that he had "a bit of doubt."


James, Joseph and Jesus were common names in ancient Jerusalem, a city of about 40,000 residents. Lemaire estimates there could have been as many as 20 Jameses in the city with brothers named Jesus and fathers named Joseph.

This is exactly why you can not be so sure. Any sort of doubt, is a doubt. Now I am not a complete skeptic, but with evidence like this. It really does not prove Jesus existed. Thanks for that bit though. That is what I am saying I need evidence of. Something that is physical, or even wrote about outside of the bible.

[redstar2000]

Poor Jesus. That communist had some great ideas. Too bad his fan club fucked everything up.

I have responded to this ridiculous myth so many times that I've lost count. But, like the villain in a teen-age slasher movie, it will not die.

"Jesus" was not a communist!

There is not a single word in the "New Testament" attributed to "Jesus" that even remotely hints at "communism" of any kind.

At one point, in fact, he explicitly states "the poor you will always have with you". At another point, he explicitly tells the Jews to pay their taxes to the Roman occupation authorities.

It is true that he didn't particularly like rich people and thought most of them were probably going to burn in "Hell"...so what?

He evidently didn't mind grabbing a free meal now and then at the tables of the rich. And he had at least one wealthy follower...who donated an expensive tomb for his mortal remains.

As to "great ideas"...like what?

"Hell" was one of his ideas...a "god" that tortures people "for eternity".

That's nice. :)

Or "loving your enemies"...what a terrific road to liberation from exploitation and oppression. We'll just "love" the capitalists "so much" that they'll "have no choice" but to step down and "give" us a communist society. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Come on, people! "Jesus" was a fundamentalist country preacher, period. He was no more a "communist" than Pat Robertson or John Paul II...or the Emperor Constantine.


It is weird in my opinion to cast a whitey as Jesus.

Quite right. The people who inhabited the Near East at the beginning of the last millennium were "brown" people...all of them except for Romans and Greeks.

On the other hand, if the old Jewish myth about "Jesus" being the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier is true, he could have had a lighter complexion than the average for northern Palestine.


Jesus existed. It is historical fact that he existed. To say he didn't would be like saying Alexander the Great didn't exist.

Well, not quite. Alexander the Great is very well documented in the ancient records, coins, sculpture, memorial inscriptions, etc.

None of these things applies in the case of "Jesus". The only "contemporary" mention of his existence outside the "New Testament" occurs in a book written about 4 decades after the crucifixion by a Jewish supporter of the Roman Empire...two brief paragraphs that many scholars think were a pious insertion by a 5th century copyist (that's the oldest copy of the book that has actually survived).

The authentic letters of Paulos of Tarsus were written at least 20-30 years after the crucifixion and the earliest gospel more than four decades after the "events" it "describes".

On the other hand, whenever the first three gospels mention events that can be confirmed from sources outside the "New Testament", they "get it right" or close to it. There are none of the wild historical blunders that characterize many of the "historical" books of the "Old Testament".

So the scholarly consensus is that Yeshuah ben-Yosif almost certainly existed and was indeed executed by the Roman authorities in about 33CE.

Past that, it's hard to say.


The proof IS in the Bible...which is basically an Historical Book!

That all depends on what you mean by "basically", of course.

I think it's important for people who are interested in this kind of thing to understand that our modern conception of how to write history -- to relate what actually happened as accurately as we can -- is completely different from the approach of the people who wrote the various books of the "Bible".

To them, history was a "morality play". If they had real events that would demonstrate their "moral point", they would use them and even exaggerate them. If no such events were available, they made them up.

Thus a "sinful King" of Judah or Israel "had" to be defeated in battle and humiliated. If that actually happened, great! If it didn't, then the writer would make up a story about such a "defeat". On the other hand, if the "sinful King" repented and returned to the ways of the "Lord", then he always won a "great victory"...real if possible, imaginary if necessary.

To them, this wasn't "lying" but telling a "greater truth" about the power of the "Lord" to "punish sin" and "reward righteousness".

It's something to keep in mind when trying to read the "Bible" as "history".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[John Galt]

Why is Mel Gibson considered greater than the vatican in matters of Jesus?

[hazard]

one star, out of five

if you took jesus out of the title, this movie would not be presentable in theatres OR in home video

it is nothing but a preulde to an hour long torture scene involving grutesque special effects

there is so much taken out of context it aint even funny, and though it is sometimes interesting to reinterpret the bible, to reinterpret it ONLY to add excessive torture is ridiculous. there is somthing to be said about anyone who thinks that ADDING footage to what was supposed to be a "flogging" as having a positive effect upon a movie. sure, I guess the public needs one bad process of corporal punishment to be replaced with a worse form, draw that process out and use as much blood and guts as imaginable. hey, it's Jesus! he'll be allright! whats the problem here? is the american public yawning through standard whipping scenes? or is the reality of a whipping scene no longer worth seeing a movie over considering that some countries allow ACTUAL whipping to be shown in film? guess not.

since we are dealing with americans, there is no such thing as "less being more". MORE IS MORE! more blood, more guts, more whipping, more torture, more gruesume elements to the crucifixion. and to make it even more disturbing is the subtraction of almost every religious factor. I mean, whoopie fucking do. an earthquake when Jesus dies? hey, I'm impressed. add a mudlside and I'm happy. Gibson should be shot for using the "anti-semetic" stunt to lure people into this pointlessly brutal interpretation of HOW jesus was crucified.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:16 AM



"Hell" was one of his ideas...a "god" that tortures people "for eternity".

That's nice. :)

No hell wasn't his idea, that had been thought up long before he "existed". Hell was just one of his beliefs.

You are giving him credit for something he didn't even think up, come on Redstar step up your game :)



Or "loving your enemies"...what a terrific road to liberation from exploitation and oppression. We'll just "love" the capitalists "so much" that they'll "have no choice" but to step down and "give" us a communist society. :lol: :lol: :lol:

While I do agree that loving your enemy won't brng about liberation you've missed the point of what he meant.

He meant that if you hated your enemy you became your enemy. Hate will drive you to do whatever it takes to destroy that enemy. Even if what you do is immoral. You were not to let hate drive you. Or so say theologial scholars.

The problem is of course that Jesus' moral standards came from the bible, so we can't rely on what he'd specifically recomend. But the concept is much different from what you said it was.

I agree that hate shouldn't be your motivation, as Che said a revolutionary is motivated by love, shortly before he blew out the brains of a Batistaist :)

However I disagree that turning the other cheek is the answer. I'm all for a solution that can be solved peacefully, but if they refuse the offer of peace, then sure why not have a revolution


Come on, people! "Jesus" was a fundamentalist country preacher, period. He was no more a "communist" than Pat Robertson or John Paul II...or the Emperor Constantine.

And the fact that he wasn't a revolutionary kinda pissed of Judas, didn't it? Really was a shame, Jesus had enough support to start a movement...instead he went into Jeruselam like a moron, and let himself be caught. Or so says the bible



So the scholarly consensus is that Yeshuah ben-Yosif almost certainly existed and was indeed executed by the Roman authorities in about 33CE.


Well there you have it, a man fitting the description of "the christ" did exist...more or less. He was areforming rabbi, he pissed off some people in high places, and whamo! HE's nailed to a cross, and a bunch of his followers, refusing to believe that thier leader went out like a punk, drum up some story about how he was the long awaited messiah.

But who among us can't say they would have done the same thing? OK who among us can say they would have done the same thing...and keep a straight face?



That all depends on what you mean by "basically", of course.

You forgot how the two parts of Isaiah seem to be written centuries apart.

[redstar2000]

No hell wasn't his idea, that had been thought up long before he "existed".

Well, I don't think there's any real way to tell for sure.

Consider...

Although there are hints of an afterlife in some of the Jewish texts written "after Daniel" but "before Paulos", only the Pharisees actually had a formalized doctrine of the "afterlife"...which they evidently borrowed from the Greeks. It was a "land of shadows" where everyone "existed" but didn't really do anything. Only the especially righteous actually got to go to "Heaven". Everyone else -- meaning nearly everyone -- went to shadowland.

To this day, as I understand it, the "afterlife" is a trivial part of Jewish theology...if they bother to mention it at all.

Thus "Hell" as a "fiery pit" seems to have been either invented by "Jesus" or, perhaps, by Paulos or "Mark" and attributed to "Jesus".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by sexydj4u+Feb 26 2004, 11:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sexydj4u @ Feb 26 2004, 11:02 PM)
[email protected] 26 2004, 03:10 PM
Y2A.

Jesus may have existed. However show me one sort of proof that does not have to do with the bible or any religious certificate that will acknowledge that Jesus was alive.

From what I understand, there is no proof outside of religion. Therefore why should I trust that Jesus was real, when I don&#39;t believe God is real?

I could be wrong on this one, I would just like to see the proof.
:) The proof IS in the Bible...which is basically an Historical Book&#33; [/b]
The bible is a heap of shit stories, with occasional referances to reality, put together into one large book whose only purpose is flawed because they made the pages too think and not soft enough.

Its all lies, slowley the whole bible is being systematically disproved, right from page one. I have no doubt that sooner or later the very existance of "Jesus" will be completely disproved by some budding historian, and that will be yet one more part of the Bible which will be proved to be shit.

So the bible is not a historical book, its a book of fairy tales, just like Hansle and Gretal.

[kingbee]

Originally posted by Liberty [email protected] 26 2004, 10:00 AM


The Hebrew&#39;s of Judea had skin paler than nords.
well ive always wondered why the peoples of that area have been portrayed as being white- it is on the hub of africa, and therefore you would assume that they would be black.

i also believe that there is a big chance that jesus was black, adn that christianity has changed his image to suit their needs.

its the same as st george. he was turkish of african descent, and black, yet all christian portraits portray him as white&#33;

[kingbee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 03:27 PM


So the bible is not a historical book, its a book of fairy tales, just like Hansle and Gretal.
apparently there is some historical accuracy to the bible- there probably was a flood, but whether god told noah to put animals in the boat, etc, i believe to be untrue.

apparently, moses in the bible has been mistaken, and his character in the bible is in fact two different people, with their actions moulded into one person.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 04:24 AM

No hell wasn&#39;t his idea, that had been thought up long before he "existed".

Well, I don&#39;t think there&#39;s any real way to tell for sure.

Consider...

Although there are hints of an afterlife in some of the Jewish texts written "after Daniel" but "before Paulos", only the Pharisees actually had a formalized doctrine of the "afterlife"...which they evidently borrowed from the Greeks. It was a "land of shadows" where everyone "existed" but didn&#39;t really do anything. Only the especially righteous actually got to go to "Heaven". Everyone else -- meaning nearly everyone -- went to shadowland.

To this day, as I understand it, the "afterlife" is a trivial part of Jewish theology...if they bother to mention it at all.

Thus "Hell" as a "fiery pit" seems to have been either invented by "Jesus" or, perhaps, by Paulos or "Mark" and attributed to "Jesus".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
I wasn&#39;t necassarily talking about the Jewish faith. I was just saying the concept of hell wasn&#39;t a creation of Jesus.

The greeks had a form of hell known as Tartarus, which was thought up after the concept of the "shadow" realm.

Also Buddhist texts talked about a hell, though most of these were written after the Buddha was said to have lived, but before Jesus existed.

The hell as a firery pit was definatly thought up after Jesus, but the concept of a place of suffering in the afterlife wasn&#39;t thought up by Jesus.

THe buddhist hell wasn&#39;t permanent, and neither is the Jewish hell(speaking of course of modern jewish thought, not ancient), the only permanent hell was the Greek&#39;s tartarus.

[Domino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 03:25 PM
Christians should thank Jews. Without Jews, Christianity is completely useless.
I completely agree. I&#39;m Jewish and I won&#39;t pay one cent to see this film. I agree with AlwaysQuestion, it&#39;s a marketing thing. I don&#39;t know if the movie is anti-semitic or not, but I won&#39;t watch it. I think it&#39;s ridiculous what Christians are doing... buying entire movie theatres so that more Christians can see it? It&#39;s scary, Christianity and all it&#39;s branches are a scary cult.

Like I said, I don&#39;t know if this film is anti-semitic, but even if it isn&#39;t, it will rise anti-semitism, as if it wasn&#39;t big enough now&#33; It&#39;s so stupid because Catholics are ignorant. Like it&#39;s been said, this was 2004 years ago&#33; Should we still hate Germans for the Shoah? No. Do we still hate the Catholic church for not Church for not helping us during the Shoah? No. Then I don&#39;t know what they have for a brain.

[elijahcraig]

The bible is a heap of shit stories, with occasional referances to reality, put together into one large book whose only purpose is flawed because they made the pages too think and not soft enough.

Its all lies, slowley the whole bible is being systematically disproved, right from page one. I have no doubt that sooner or later the very existance of "Jesus" will be completely disproved by some budding historian, and that will be yet one more part of the Bible which will be proved to be shit.

So the bible is not a historical book, its a book of fairy tales, just like Hansle and Gretal.

Anyone who interprets the Bible in any literal way obviously has problems, but to say that it is completely inhistorical (right word? ahistorical?) is a little off. For example, the "great flood" of the Bible occurs in nearly all mythologies (or all in that region). The "great flood" of Noah was actually a regionalized event which occured in and around the area of the, I think, Mediterranean sea. Obviously, this was amplified in the mind of the biblical writer to mean the "whole world flooded", when in fact just their region flooded for a number of days.

I also do not like completely rational attacks on myth, it does not work in my opinion. I share the views of Jung and Campbell when considering myth, as opposed to rigid rationalism. Which means I interpret Abraham, for example, not as a singular person, but as an archetype of the entire Jewish race. Most intelligent people would assume this at least. Right-winger Christians do not. I also like Vico&#39;s theories (while nearly always idealized far too much) in terms of viewing the progress of human culture in regards to philology (in his terms, language, myth, literature, in sum the humanities). Although, as Joyce said, they are only usable so far.

[redstar2000]

I also do not like completely rational attacks on myth, it does not work in my opinion.

Why not? In what sense do rational attacks on mythology "fail" to "work"?


Which means I interpret Abraham, for example, not as a singular person, but as an archetype of the entire Jewish race. Most intelligent people would assume this at least.

I don&#39;t think "most intelligent people" would "assume" any such thing.

First of all, those no such thing as a "Jewish race".

Even more importantly, in modern science there&#39;s no such thing as "race" at all...the very "idea" has been discarded as useless.

Intelligent people who have looked into the matter have concluded that "race" is a social construct...it has no "objective" existence.

Yes, people "look different" from each other...but the differences between people of "the same race" are greater than the differences between people of different "races".

There was a recent study (in Brazil, if I&#39;m not mistaken) that revealed that many "white people" had more genetically in common with most "black people" than they had in common with other "white people". And many "black people" had more genetically in common with most "white people" than they had in common with other "black people".

As a social construct or "myth", "race" is still very important to a lot of people...almost always for very bad reasons.

Which would seem to suggest that "rational attacks" on mythology are very important and we need a lot more of them.

Smash all mythologies&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Why not? In what sense do rational attacks on mythology "fail" to "work"?

Because the Bible is not rational and does not seek to be (except in the halls of the minds of right-wing idiots).

They may "work", but they leave me, personally--as only a "me" can be&#33;--, dissatisfied.


I don&#39;t think "most intelligent people" would "assume" any such thing.

Then you think a man lived to by over 900?


First of all, those no such thing as a "Jewish race".

False.


Even more importantly, in modern science there&#39;s no such thing as "race" at all...the very "idea" has been discarded as useless.

Intelligent people who have looked into the matter have concluded that "race" is a social construct...it has no "objective" existence.

Blah blah blah. You mean the scientists politically useful to your views have decided such a thing.


Yes, people "look different" from each other...but the differences between people of "the same race" are greater than the differences between people of different "races".

Differences in what way?


There was a recent study (in Brazil, if I&#39;m not mistaken) that revealed that many "white people" had more genetically in common with most "black people" than they had in common with other "white people". And many "black people" had more genetically in common with most "white people" than they had in common with other "black people".

Interbreeding of races could easily account for that. No one (at this point) is 100% anything.


As a social construct or "myth", "race" is still very important to a lot of people...almost always for very bad reasons.

I don&#39;t find it at all important. That doesn&#39;t mean we should discard the actual existence of it.


Which would seem to suggest that "rational attacks" on mythology are very important and we need a lot more of them.

I don&#39;t consider race a mythology (if it was as you put forth) the same way I consider the Bible a mythology.


Smash all mythologies&#33;

Have you read the work of Joseph Campbell? Masks of God or the Hero with a thousand faces?

[enderisdragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 09:10 PM
Y2A.

Jesus may have existed. However show me one sort of proof that does not have to do with the bible or any religious certificate that will acknowledge that Jesus was alive.

From what I understand, there is no proof outside of religion. Therefore why should I trust that Jesus was real, when I don&#39;t believe God is real?

I could be wrong on this one, I would just like to see the proof.
any writings that included jesus would have been taken by the papacy and are now part of religious doctrine

[AmericanZionist2004]

I have a question as a Jew. Why do people make such a big uproar about a movie by Mel Gibson that might be anti-Semitic (and I don&#39;t condone that, it bothers me so I won&#39;t see it) but many of the movie&#39;s more liberal critics remain silent in cases of real anti-Semitism, i.e. attacks against Jews in Europe or Al Qaeda attacks on synagogues in North Africa or, morr broadly, the suicide bombings against Jewish civillians in the Middle East? Say what you want about IDF policies but the civillians in Israel are the homefront. And many people do not speak against it, but they view a movie as a threat to spark an anti-Semitic movement.

[Stapler]

What is and isn&#39;t factual is not the question. The bible, and virtually all religious texts are merely parables designed to teach an underlying moral principle. Argue all you want about wether the story of david and goliath is real, it probably wasn&#39;t. However, there is an underlying story - one of the little guy, the underdog triumphing over the favourite. Who doesn&#39;t root for the underdog?

[redstar2000]

...but many of the movie&#39;s more liberal critics remain silent in cases of real anti-Semitism, i.e., the suicide bombings against Jewish civilians in the Middle East? Say what you want about IDF policies but the civilians in Israel are the homefront. And many people do not speak against it, but they view a movie as a threat to spark an anti-Semitic movement.

Because leftist opposition to the IDF&#39;s fascist occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is not considered "anti-semitic" except by Israeli expansionists&#33;

That&#39;s sort of obvious, isn&#39;t it?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas