The Passion Of The Christ: Free Movie Posters and other promotional items!

[NiNe]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Really tho, how the hell do they know what it was like (that is if it really happend at all)??? I too am waiting for the game! Be the first one to nail him wins... Or maybe get stoned to death??? Sigh.......

Good question. If you're really asking a question and not just trolling.

Let's see, there's Josephus the Jewish historian, Maimonides, etc.. There's also a number of Roman (Celsus, etc.) and Jewish critics (Talmudic sources) of early Chrisitianity that attack Christianity on a number of fronts, but never question the historical account of the crucifixion. It would have been an easy target if it didn't happen. They all argue about why the tomb was empty, but never question that it was empty.

Then there's historical corroboration. For instance, Luke refers to Quirinius the Roman governor. For years, critics thought Luke's reference was an indication of fabrication because we knew Quirinius' term and it didn't match up with Luke's timeline. We later discovered that Quirinius served two terms, one of which matched perfectly with Luke. That's one of many examples.

In any case, there is far more historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth than there is for Julius Caesar (by several order of magnitude). Even Skeptic magazine doesn't question the fact of the historical Jesus or his crucifixion.

You asked...

 

[huesmann]

Originally posted by: NiNe
In any case, there is far more historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth than there is for Julius Caesar (by several order of magnitude). Even Skeptic magazine doesn't question the fact of the historical Jesus or his crucifixion.

Do they question the fact of the historical Julius Caesar?

 

[Mac]

Although I too am looking forward to seeing this movie, I am more interested in the potential impact it may have on the audience, particularly those who are not of the Christian faith and even those who nominally consider themselves to be Christians but are basically illiterate of the Bible.

To clear up a few points raised earlier, the movie is not anti-Semitic in the sense that it does not target Jews. Rather it is an attempt to provide an accurate portrayal of Jesus's life, his crucifixion and resurrection based upon the Gospels of the New Testament. I have not seen the movie, but my understanding is that it succeeds in presenting an unflinching enactment of these events faithful to the Gospels. Furthermore, it is very realistic in its depiction of the sufferings of Jesus. Something which I believed is glossed over in modern church.

According to the Gospels, the Roman government crucified Jesus at the insistence of the Jewish establishment. From an historical perspective, the Romans didn't really care one or the other. It was not their custom to interfere in local matters except when it threatened civil order. Jesus's teachings and what he said about himself were heretical to Jewish beliefs and customs. In Jesus's time, heresy was a very serious offense and punishable by death according to Jewish law. Because the Jews were under Roman law, they did not have the power to execute, thus their need to get the Romans to crucify Jesus. Regardless of who did what, anyone who has read the Gospels and has a basic understanding of history, must come to the conclusion that the Jewish establishment and Romans were merely instruments in God's plan for salvation. Jesus freely acknowedged and accepted that his mission was to die for man's sin, to make the final atonement. It was not so much a matter of who was responsible but rather when and why it happened.

Regarding Mel Gibson belonging to an anti Jewish sect...WHAT? Where does this stuff come from? Gibson is a Roman Catholic and, considering his movie career, I'm not even certain how fervent a Catholic he is. However, it is indeed interesting that he has said that this project has been burning within him for several years for some inexplicable reason and that he finally had to do it. If one considers that Gibson has put his own money into the movie and the prominence and power of Jews within the film industry which may be offended by this movie, I think Gibson has taken considerable risk, both financially and personally. (Note - Before the flames start, I do not subscribe to any international Jewish conspriacy nonsense...I am just stating the facts).

The movie was done in Aramaic and Latin for two reasons. Those were the actual languages of the day, thus, one more element of authenticity. Also, by using these languages, the producers wanted to remove/minimize the impression that it is an American or western film. This is a documentary for the world.

Really tho, how the hell do they know what it was like (that is if it really happend at all)??? I too am waiting for the game! Be the first one to nail him wins... Or maybe get stoned to death??? Sigh.......

It happened. There are independent historical accounts separate from the Gospels that document Jesus's existence. The most commonly accepted was by a contemporary historian Josephus. The real issue, as it has been for two thousand years, is whether you believe in what Jesus taught, who he said he was (the Son of God and by inference, God in the flesh) and his resurrection.

Regarding "...waiting for the game! Be the first one...", my heart aches when I read these remarks.

 

[NiNe]

Originally posted by: QuicknDirty
Isn't this movie entirely in Hebrew? I absolutely HATE subtitled movies. ZZzzzzzzzz.

If it weren't for that, I'd probably be interested in seeing it. I enjoy fantasy movies just as much as the next guy. Heck, it might even be better than LoTR!


Edit: Actually it is entirely in Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

linkypoo

Actually, that was one of the facets that I appreciated most in the movie. But then again, I watch Japanese anime in Japanese whenever possible.

At the screening I attended, Mel Gibson used the analogy of a Danish Viking. You see this Viking ship coming toward your shores, it hits the beaches and a giant Viking with a double-headed battle-axe jumps out. If he starts talking in English, you're just not scared. But if he growls at you in some gutteral Germanic-dialect... In any case, the dialogue is never quick enough to present a problem.

Another cool thing for a theology geek like me was the attention to accuracy /detail in this regard. For instance, most of the time Jesus speaks in Aramaic. But when Pontius Pilate first addresses him, Pilate speaks in Aramaic, apparently assuming that Jesus was a peasant with no learning. Jesus answers Pilate in Latin, at which point Pilate continues the conversation in Latin. 99% of people will never notice, but now you know. Feel free to impress your friends and deceive them into thinking you have a thorough Classical education.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: Mac
Although I too am looking forward to seeing this movie, I am more interested in the potential impact it may have on the audience, particularly those who are not of the Christian faith and even those who nominally consider themselves to be Christians but are basically illiterate of the Bible.

To clear up a few points raised earlier, the movie is not anti-Semitic in the sense that it does not target Jews. Rather it is an attempt to provide an accurate portrayal of Jesus's life, his crucifixion and resurrection based upon the Gospels of the New Testament. I have not seen the movie, but my understanding is that it succeeds in presenting an unflinching enactment of these events faithful to the Gospels. Furthermore, it is very realistic in its depiction of the sufferings of Jesus. Something which I believed is glossed over in modern church.

According to the Gospels, the Roman government crucified Jesus at the insistence of the Jewish establishment. From an historical perspective, the Romans didn't really care one or the other. It was not their custom to interfere in local matters except when it threatened civil order. Jesus's teachings and what he said about himself were heretical to Jewish beliefs and customs. In Jesus's time, heresy was a very serious offense and punishable by death according to Jewish law. Because the Jews were under Roman law, they did not have the power to execute, thus their need to get the Romans to crucify Jesus. Regardless of who did what, anyone who has read the Gospels and has a basic understanding of history, must come to the conclusion that the Jewish establishment and Romans were merely instruments in God's plan for salvation. Jesus freely acknowedged and accepted that his mission was to die for man's sin, to make the final atonement. It was not so much a matter of who was responsible but rather when and why it happened.

Regarding Mel Gibson belonging to an anti Jewish sect...WHAT? Where does this stuff come from? Gibson is a Roman Catholic and, considering his movie career, I'm not even certain how fervent a Catholic he is. However, it is indeed interesting that he has said that this project has been burning within him for several years for some inexplicable reason and that he finally had to do it. If one considers that Gibson has put his own money into the movie and the prominence and power of Jews within the film industry which may be offended by this movie, I think Gibson has taken considerable risk, both financially and personally. (Note - Before the flames start, I do not subscribe to any international Jewish conspriacy nonsense...I am just stating the facts).

The movie was done in Aramaic and Latin for two reasons. Those were the actual languages of the day, thus, one more element of authenticity. Also, by using these languages, the producers wanted to remove/minimize the impression that it is an American or western film. This is a documentary for the world.

Really tho, how the hell do they know what it was like (that is if it really happend at all)??? I too am waiting for the game! Be the first one to nail him wins... Or maybe get stoned to death??? Sigh.......

It happened. There are independent historical accounts separate from the Gospels that document Jesus's existence. The most commonly accepted was by a contemporary historian Josephus. The real issue, as it has been for two thousand years, is whether you believe in what Jesus taught, who he said he was (the Son of God and by inference, God in the flesh) and his resurrection.

Regarding "...waiting for the game! Be the first one...", my heart aches when I read these remarks.

As far as Mel Gibson goes, I haget to be negative but it seems a little odd too me, that he would be very devout, but then play characters like in Payback. That character glorifies, and turns into a hero, someone who is essentially a bade guy. This doesn't bother me, but how does it fit with his faith (this is not a flame, this is a legitimate question)

 

[QuicknDirty]

Originally posted by: Johnbear007

Originally posted by: Mac
Although I too am looking forward to seeing this movie, I am more interested in the potential impact it may have on the audience, particularly those who are not of the Christian faith and even those who nominally consider themselves to be Christians but are basically illiterate of the Bible.

To clear up a few points raised earlier, the movie is not anti-Semitic in the sense that it does not target Jews. Rather it is an attempt to provide an accurate portrayal of Jesus's life, his crucifixion and resurrection based upon the Gospels of the New Testament. I have not seen the movie, but my understanding is that it succeeds in presenting an unflinching enactment of these events faithful to the Gospels. Furthermore, it is very realistic in its depiction of the sufferings of Jesus. Something which I believed is glossed over in modern church.

According to the Gospels, the Roman government crucified Jesus at the insistence of the Jewish establishment. From an historical perspective, the Romans didn't really care one or the other. It was not their custom to interfere in local matters except when it threatened civil order. Jesus's teachings and what he said about himself were heretical to Jewish beliefs and customs. In Jesus's time, heresy was a very serious offense and punishable by death according to Jewish law. Because the Jews were under Roman law, they did not have the power to execute, thus their need to get the Romans to crucify Jesus. Regardless of who did what, anyone who has read the Gospels and has a basic understanding of history, must come to the conclusion that the Jewish establishment and Romans were merely instruments in God's plan for salvation. Jesus freely acknowedged and accepted that his mission was to die for man's sin, to make the final atonement. It was not so much a matter of who was responsible but rather when and why it happened.

Regarding Mel Gibson belonging to an anti Jewish sect...WHAT? Where does this stuff come from? Gibson is a Roman Catholic and, considering his movie career, I'm not even certain how fervent a Catholic he is. However, it is indeed interesting that he has said that this project has been burning within him for several years for some inexplicable reason and that he finally had to do it. If one considers that Gibson has put his own money into the movie and the prominence and power of Jews within the film industry which may be offended by this movie, I think Gibson has taken considerable risk, both financially and personally. (Note - Before the flames start, I do not subscribe to any international Jewish conspriacy nonsense...I am just stating the facts).

The movie was done in Aramaic and Latin for two reasons. Those were the actual languages of the day, thus, one more element of authenticity. Also, by using these languages, the producers wanted to remove/minimize the impression that it is an American or western film. This is a documentary for the world.

Really tho, how the hell do they know what it was like (that is if it really happend at all)??? I too am waiting for the game! Be the first one to nail him wins... Or maybe get stoned to death??? Sigh.......

It happened. There are independent historical accounts separate from the Gospels that document Jesus's existence. The most commonly accepted was by a contemporary historian Josephus. The real issue, as it has been for two thousand years, is whether you believe in what Jesus taught, who he said he was (the Son of God and by inference, God in the flesh) and his resurrection.

Regarding "...waiting for the game! Be the first one...", my heart aches when I read these remarks.

As far as Mel Gibson goes, I haget to be negative but it seems a little odd too me, that he would be very devout, but then play characters like in Payback. That character glorifies, and turns into a hero, someone who is essentially a bade guy. This doesn't bother me, but how does it fit with his faith (this is not a flame, this is a legitimate question)

It's his job and he's playing a character, which has nothing what so ever to do with what he is in real life. He's got to pay for his 20 kids somehow you know...

QnD

 

[smw]

Originally posted by: Mac
Regarding Mel Gibson belonging to an anti Jewish sect...WHAT? Where does this stuff come from? Gibson is a Roman Catholic and, considering his movie career, I'm not even certain how fervent a Catholic he is. However, it is indeed interesting that he has said that this project has been burning within him for several years for some inexplicable reason and that he finally had to do it. If one considers that Gibson has put his own money into the movie and the prominence and power of Jews within the film industry which may be offended by this movie, I think Gibson has taken considerable risk, both financially and personally. (Note - Before the flames start, I do not subscribe to any international Jewish conspriacy nonsense...I am just stating the facts).

For what it's worth, Mel Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson, is a virulent anti-semite and Holocaust denier, and also denies that Al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11. Mel, himself, is a member of a group of Catholic traditionalists that reject Vatican II; therefore one could reasonably infer (hopefully inaccurately) that he is also anti-Jewish.

 

[Netopia]

Is there another example in which that word is preceded by "the"? It just sounds so weird with "the" in front of it that they could have probably left it out without hardly anyone thinking anything of it. The way it is though, it's going to be a topic of bewilderment.

These are from the Bible:

[*] MT 1:17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.


[*]MT2:4 When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. 5 "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:

[*] MT 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

MT 16:14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

MT 16:15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

MT 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."


[*]MT16:20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

THERE ARE MORE FROM MATTHEW... I'M GOING TO SKIP ONWARD

[*] MK 12:35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
" `The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." '

[*] MK 13:21 At that time if anyone says to you, `Look, here is the Christ!' or, `Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 22 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

*** The previous passage is good too because it speaks of "false Christs".... thereby showing its usage as a Title.

[*] LK 3:15 The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Christ. 16 John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

[*]46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

[*]AC 17:1 When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2 As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ, " he said. 4 Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.

[*]AC 18:28 For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.



There are MANY more I could post, but I think I've listed enough to validate the idea that Christ is a Title, like Mayor, President or General. It's just the Latin word for the Hebrew word that we translate Messiah. Messiah and Christ are the exact same thing... both in English mean "choosen one" or "annointed one". What cracks me up is when I'm talking to people (especially if they happen to be Jews... I've got a TON of Jewish friends) and they say something like "Jesus CHRIST was NOT the Messiah!" They don't understand that what they are actually saying is "Jesus the Messiah was not the Messiah".

Joe

 

[mattingly]

Bart: "Why do we need church shoes? Jesus wore sandals."
Homer: "Maybe if he had better arch support, they wouldn't have caught him."

 

[mattingly]

Superintendent Chalmers: "Prayer has no place in school, just as learning has no place in organized religion."

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: straubs

Originally posted by: rseiler
This poster would drive me insane, since I could never look at it and not wonder what the heck the second "the" is doing in the title.

NO KIDDING!!! The Christ? That makes no sense at all. I'm going to start calling myself The Scott.

I noticed something strange on the website. You have to click In order to view the clips, you have to click the GetHTML *button* and a text box will pop up with a text link. You have to copy and paste the links yourself... Why on earth would they do that? Are they trying to stop people from watching the clips? Very odd...

The point is for people to copy the HTML onto their websites to like the the Passion site. After all, it is a promo site.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: Mac
Regarding Mel Gibson belonging to an anti Jewish sect...WHAT? Where does this stuff come from?

Right here

Gibson, a devout follower of a Roman Catholic splinter group that believes in a Latin Mass and rejects changes made in the Church by Vatican II....

As someone else stated, Vatican II was what changed the Roman Catholic church's view that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death.

If you look up most other articles about the movie on CNN it mentions that. One of the earlier ones actually spells out what rejecting Vatican II means.

P.S. And for general refference I never said Mel hated the Jews. All I said was that he believed they were responsible for the death of Jesus. For all we know he could be saying "naw, it's cool, everyone makes mistakes... just don't do it again."

 

[Mac]

As someone else stated, Vatican II was what changed the Roman Catholic church's view that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death.

Not being a Catholic, I don't keep track of what Vatican II is all about. However, I have read all the Gospels regarding the events leading upto Jesus's crucifixion and there is no doubt that the Jewish leaders wanted him put to death. This also extended to the Jewish populace who when given the choice of Barrabas or Jesus, yelled for Barrabas's release while clamoring for the crucifixion of Jesus.

To conclude that anyone but the Jews were responsible for Jesus's death is historical revisionism. Is this an indictment of Jews for Jesus's death which demands punishment and persecution? NO! That was simply the way it was.

What many Christians fail to realize is that the early Church was founded by Jews. Aside from the obvious fact that Jesus was a Jew, the entire early church was 100% Jews who became followers of Jesus. A reading of the book of Acts shows that the Apostles remained for some time in Jeruselum preaching at the Temple daily, adding thousands to their number. The Apostles were all Jews and the only people permitted in the Temple were Jews. At one point, there was serious disagreements among themselves if a non-Jew could become a Christian. That became Paul's mission because most Jews didn't want to have anything to do with Gentiles.

 

[Royboy81]

NiNe,
That was a great response! Kudos to you and your explanation!

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: SenorBiggles
Anybody else thinking about The Big Lebowski?

"Nobody fvcks with the Jesus."

It don't matter to Jesus.

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

I couldn't help but notice that this thread has gone a bit off-topic... that is, people are debating what role Jews had in the crucifixion of Jesus, quoting bible passages, and analyzing Mel Gibson's piety. I find it a bit strange that such an overtly off-topic discussion remains in this forum. Just an observation.

**** Hot Deals Forum Rules - Please read before posting ****
If you want to discuss religion, or any other such non-computer topic, do it in our Off Topic forum

Valsalva

 

[yukichigai]

This was relating to the film, not religion per se. That was until Mac's post; sorry dude, that was about the closest thing to a flame this thread has seen.

Anyway, good stuff if you dig the film, but do watch out for potential controversy backlash from it.

 

[Whiskyboy]

Okee, I'm happy that we were able to find another free deal. It's not the shipping costs that kill this particular deal for me, it's that we went from discussing the nice promotional quality of this to literally quoting scriptures. The great thing about AT:HD is that techie nerds of all races, religions, and creedos can come to together to ponder the relative "Heat" of the deal without fear of persecution. Please take the Christ, the Mathew, and the Mel to OT so we can continue discussing whether $12 for 5 posters is a good deal. Please, please, please. If you don't care what I think, perhaps the mods can help you decide. I highlited the fun parts!
Cheers

Originally posted by: boggsie
From AnandTech Hot Deals Forum Rules ... post #1 in this section:

What about COURTESY?

No thread crapping. If the subject matter of a deal does not interest you, do not post negative comments about it, or about other members, in the thread.

[/u]Possibly the worst examples we have had of this have been in posts for free religious items, such as bibles, (Christ Killing Movies), etc. If you want to discuss religion, or any other such non-computer topic, do it in our Off Topic forum.[/u] The discussions in that forum cover a wide range of topics, but needless flaming and rude, mean-spirited posts are not welcome there, either.

Stick to discussing the deal. Do not post needless rude or trivial comments about someone else's posts. < ... snip ...>

Think before you post. Rude posts can kill a good deal. < ... snip ...>

 

[viewlike]

This movie will beat Lord of Rings to me. Can't wait to watch this movie.

 

[c627627]

Originally posted by: Mac:

To conclude that anyone but the Jews were responsible for Jesus's death is historical revisionism.

It wasn't a mob lynch, it was an execution, so how can the Romans as the ultimate rulers of their colonies and their empire bare no blame?

The vast majority of Germans were not against "the forcible removal" of "those that were not like them" in the late 1930's and 1940's but it is the Nazi government we put on trial at Nuremberg in 1946 and likewise in 2004 it is the Serbian Presidents and officials we try at the Hague and reject their claims outright that "the mob was responsible" for the Genocide in Bosnia during the 1990s.

The Romans did it and just what the mob did or did not say serves to divert us from common sense, as to just who it is we would put on trial for His death if we could.

 

[TekDemon]

Eh, I'll probably go see this(even though some people apparently feel compelled to ask why when I tell them this). Why? Cuz it sounded cool that it's largely in aramaic, and street latin(basically italian from what I heard). Plus it could be good you know...I thought the original pre-distribution deal trailer was very good...don't really like the newer trailers as much, but we'll see.

And if you frequent OT you'll know I'm not a Christian, lol.

 

[TekDemon]

Originally posted by: jodhas

Originally posted by: deeznuts

Originally posted by: inataysia

Originally posted by: iowankid
Man, Mel (and company) are sure gonna need a lot of prayers to withstand the flaming of the secular world.

why would the secular world care ? it's more likely going to be those religious nuts whose particular world view isn't perfectly achieved in the movie.

because they are secular. too much religion in anything will bring out protests somewhat.

but it is the religious groups causing the most noise.

religious groups causing the most noise? Last time I checked the War Protesters and Maryl Streep are hardly religious.

Wow...someone makes a comment about the noise around the MOVIE and you launch into psycho-ATOT religious flaming mode...
And the thread was so nice until your post...all calm.

So yeah, war protesters and meryl streep are protesting this movie huh?

Anyway the reason why there isn't much secular protest is because that'd be silly. It's a movie, and people can believe what they want and say what they want in their movies...only people who have hardcore beliefs that are contradicted would really have issue. It's like how only comic book geeks give a crap when a comic book movie isn't true to the original comic. Everybody else just goes and sees the movie, or doesn't and doesn't make any noise at all. Meanwhile, the comic book people are going: "OMG THEY CHANGED THE X-MEN UNIFORMS!!!"

 

[Spartacus]

Originally posted by: NiNe

Originally posted by: ericlp

Really tho, how the hell do they know what it was like (that is if it really happend at all)??? I too am waiting for the game! Be the first one to nail him wins... Or maybe get stoned to death??? Sigh.......

Good question. If you're really asking a question and not just trolling.

Let's see, there's Josephus the Jewish historian, Maimonides, etc.. There's also a number of Roman (Celsus, etc.) and Jewish critics (Talmudic sources) of early Chrisitianity that attack Christianity on a number of fronts, but never question the historical account of the crucifixion. It would have been an easy target if it didn't happen. They all argue about why the tomb was empty, but never question that it was empty.

Then there's historical corroboration. For instance, Luke refers to Quirinius the Roman governor. For years, critics thought Luke's reference was an indication of fabrication because we knew Quirinius' term and it didn't match up with Luke's timeline. We later discovered that Quirinius served two terms, one of which matched perfectly with Luke. That's one of many examples.

In any case, there is far more historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth than there is for Julius Caesar (by several order of magnitude). Even Skeptic magazine doesn't question the fact of the historical Jesus or his crucifixion.

You asked...

I can answer that also,... especially about Josephus, whos writings mysteriously mention Jebus about 300 years AFTER he died...BTW, he was born about ~70AD which would make him like so not there for first hand account of anything.... (typical Xtian FUD..., why dont you rewrite Torah and everything else to support your cause)

 

[Spartacus]

There are MANY more I could post, but I think I've listed enough to validate the idea that Christ is a Title, like Mayor, President or General. It's just the Latin word for the Hebrew word that we translate Messiah. Messiah and Christ are the exact same thing... both in English mean "choosen one" or "annointed one". What cracks me up is when I'm talking to people (especially if they happen to be Jews... I've got a TON of Jewish friends) and they say something like "Jesus CHRIST was NOT the Messiah!" They don't understand that what they are actually saying is "Jesus the Messiah was not the Messiah".

Joe

Could this be because he accomplished about 0 of all the Messianic prophecies? Or let me put it this way according to Xtians he accomplised all (only the ones that CANNOT be verified) and for the rest there is 2nd coming (more like 3rd now) which is not mentioned ANYWHERE besides your fantasy world.

 

[Gibzilla]

"You" can say/do/show/ whatever you want to demean, and insult my savior THE CHRIST but my belief will never be shaken. And, oh yeah i'll go see this movie on the first day it comes out and I'll buy THe dvd too =)