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

[NiNe]

Originally posted by: ericlp
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)

Wow, you are way off base. Your 300-year comment is incorrect /misleading and Josephus is a very reliable historian. Are you saying that eyewitness accounts are the only acceptable historical data? By that account, you should take the gospels as primary evidence.

But if you're so into revisionist history, how do you account for the Talmudic references to Jesus? Did the Christians rewrite the Talmud and then the Jews just happily transmitted the re-written copies? The Talmud differs on why the tomb was empty, but does not dispute that it was empty.

Find one contemporary historian that believes that Jesus did not live and die in 1st-century Palestine. Just one. You can't do it, yet your prejudice locks you into that untenable conclusion.

Dude, just leave this thread as what it was. Free stuff related to a movie. If you don't like Christian-stuff and don't want to incite more Christian responses, then just look elsewhere. This thread would be long-dead if not for people like you.

 

[VaG]

Originally posted by: TheCoop
I have heard great reviews for this movie. Only one thing, I know the ending already. Read THE BOOK, its better.

So they have two things in common. They're both fairy tales with the same ending.

 

[NiNe]

Originally posted by: 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.

Ok, "0"? Really? Unverifiable?

Let's see (off the top of my head):
1) He was of the line of David (no one disputed this -- birth records were available until the Temple was destroyed in 70AD)
2) Died for our sins (Isaiah 53 - all early Jewish tradition sees this as Messianic, only changed later in response to Christianity)
3) Whipped (Isa 53)
4) Buried in a rich man's grave (Isa 53)
5) Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)
6) None of his bones were broken (also a requirement for the Passover lamb, which were being sacrificed at precisely the time when Jesus was dying on the cross)
7) Pierced hands and feet (Psalm 22 - long seen as Messianic in historical Jewish interpretation)
8) Cast lots for his clothing (Psalm 22)
9) Born exactly when Daniel predicted (Daniel 9:25 - do the math -- 483 years after rebuilding of Jerusalem -- that's why there was so much Messiah hype when Jesus was born -- there were even communities living in the desert - the Essenes - actively awaiting the imminent coming of the Messiah)
10) Died before destruction of Temple (Daniel 9:26)
11) Many more...

In fact, no one born after the destruction of the Temple could possible fulfill the prophecies about the Messiah. Either Jesus was it, or there is no Messiah and Jewish religious writings are in error.

You know, I'd be happy to stop adding to this thread if the thread-crappers would just go away.

 

[huesmann]

How about y'all take the religious banter to OT and leave this thread to deal-hounds.

 

[db]

Why are some people so reactive about Christianity?

- They have had it shoved down their throats in the past; or,
- It tells them not to do stuff they want to do; or,
- They want concrete, definitive proof or it's not valid; or,
- They support the "other side"

Note to Christians: if you want to show people how great Christianity is, you must do it by being a *good example*.
I used to have people at work who were jerks or hosers telling everyone they should be Christians. My attitude to those particular people was:
"In *your* case, the best thing you could do to promote Christianity is to shut up."

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: 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

He is quite right and I back him on this. I'm sure that he's had to bite his virtual tongue not to wade in against this "Hot Deal" in general, and I appreciate his effort in that. We should also abide by the rules and create a thread in the Off Topic forum to discuss any religious specifics. I myself should have posted what I did above not here but elsewhere.

Respectfully,

Joe

 

[0roo0roo]

just remember his papa is in opus dei

 

[CentralScrutinizer]

I'm waiting for the DVD with the alternative ending. You know, were Jesus bites the nails out of his hands & feet, does a backflip off the cross and then kicks some serious Pontious Pilate ass. Maybe then grab a chariot and Selma Hayek and go spend some more time in the desert, if you catch my drift.

 

The problem people have with this movie has nothing to do with what it says really. The problem people see is that its going to be a good movie and a blockbuster. (hence the reason this is such a hot deal) Seriously, most people by far will be greatly influenced by the film simply because most people have no idea (not as in it is not known, as in they are ignorant) of what happened, just like the fact that a rather large portion of young people get their news from the daily show.

 

[Netopia]

One reason I'd like posters of something like this... even were I not a Christian is just the fact that it's historically acurate versus a film like Pocahontas which lied and showed her teaching people her paganism rather than the truth that she in fact became a Christian.

Joe

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Netopia
One reason I'd like posters of something like this... even were I not a Christian is just the fact that it's historically acurate versus a film like Pocahontas which lied and showed her teaching people her paganism rather than the truth that she in fact became a Christian.

Joe

I'm not entirely sure that this movie is historically accurate, or even the Biblical account of Jesus. Remember that most all of the books in the NT were written at least 40 years after the events happened. In addition, there are other accounts in books not in the Bible that say Jesus didn't suffer at all, although those were discounted as Gnostic, and those not G-d inspired. Thus, this Deal is warm, but it must be taken as a Hollywood movie and not a documentary.

I think Mel is just trying to make some $$$

 

[CentralScrutinizer]

Reading this thread is like accidentally walking into a Star Trek convention -- you are amazed how seemingly intelligent people can get so wrapped up in an artificial construct that they actually formulate proofs based on assumed fallacies that they convince their minds are bulletproof.

 

[QuicknDirty]

This thread is getting a bit touchy now...however-

Curious. I wonder what would happen today if someone went around saying they were the son of god or a conduit to a deity? Would they be hailed as a messiah? Oh, that's right... The nuthouses are full of them, or it's ended in some tragic incident (Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite). Could it be that in simpler times, people were more easily bumfuzzled into believing something they really wanted to believe in? Why is there any reason to believe that Jesus was nothing more than a highly charismatic cult leader? Because a "book" that was written from a story passed down from generation to generation, translated several times over into different languages to become what is known today as "The Bible"?

It's scary that while many people hail christianity, they ignore the fact that historically (and even today), their beliefs were forced onto others, using food, medicine, charity, and even war as a tool to coerce or brainwash other civilizations into seeing "the way" destroying artifacts and other historical documents because they didn't jive with what they believed to be true... and even today fight to have the teaching of evolution removed from our public schools because it blatently and scientifically contradicts their book of fairy tales.

What gives christianity the power to decide which beliefs are right or wrong? What is it any different that the belief of early Greeks or Romans? The Egyptians? The Incas or Aztecs? The American Indians? Because they have a book that says so? LMAO.



Factnet

 

[db]

"artificial construct ", heh.

Folks, you can't argue about a belief--and that goes for both sides of an arguement.

Again, if Christians want to convert folks, they need to do it by being a good example, not by shoving it down peoples' throats.

 

"Reading this thread is like accidentally walking into a Star Trek convention -- you are amazed how seemingly intelligent people can get so wrapped up in an artificial construct that they actually formulate proofs based on assumed fallacies that they convince their minds are bulletproof. "
Well, you know those string theorists

 

[Bonesdad]

Originally posted by: CentralScrutinizer
Reading this thread is like accidentally walking into a Star Trek convention -- you are amazed how seemingly intelligent people can get so wrapped up in an artificial construct that they actually formulate proofs based on assumed fallacies that they convince their minds are bulletproof.

Yah, like football fans this weekend....

 

[Morrie20]

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)

Great question... it fits perfectly
You see, we are all a work in progress. Yes, Mel has been in some roles that might not be in line with what he is professing now, but aren't we all on a journey? The Bible shows even great heroes of the faith had flaws that were worked out over time. It also talks about something called sanctification where as you submit to Him more every day that you find yourself on this wonderful journey of being more like Him. The answer to your question is that hope and an indescribable future on earth and in eternity is something we all have Jeremiah 29:11. As you can see in Matthew 6:33, we just need to seek Him first for this hope... the hope that eradicates the shackles of our past whether they be questionable roles, decisions or what have you.

I would love to continue this conversation via e-mail but you don't have one posted

 

[QuicknDirty]

Originally posted by: Morrie20

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)

Great question... it fits perfectly
You see, we are all a work in progress. Yes, Mel has been in some roles that might not be in line with what he is professing now, but aren't we all on a journey? The Bible shows even great heroes of the faith had flaws that were worked out over time. It also talks about something called sanctification where as you submit to Him more every day that you find yourself on this wonderful journey of being more like Him. The answer to your question is that hope and an indescribable future on earth and in eternity is something we all have Jeremiah 29:11. As you can see in Matthew 6:33, we just need to seek Him first for this hope... the hope that eradicates the shackles of our past whether they be questionable roles, decisions or what have you.


I would love to continue this conversation via e-mail but you don't have one posted

Riiiiiiight. OR, it could be because it's his job, and he made a decision to get a paycheck. Hmmm. Which one is the logical, rational choice?

 

[SuperShaz]

Originally posted by: QuicknDirty

Originally posted by: Morrie20

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)

Great question... it fits perfectly
You see, we are all a work in progress. Yes, Mel has been in some roles that might not be in line with what he is professing now, but aren't we all on a journey? The Bible shows even great heroes of the faith had flaws that were worked out over time. It also talks about something called sanctification where as you submit to Him more every day that you find yourself on this wonderful journey of being more like Him. The answer to your question is that hope and an indescribable future on earth and in eternity is something we all have Jeremiah 29:11. As you can see in Matthew 6:33, we just need to seek Him first for this hope... the hope that eradicates the shackles of our past whether they be questionable roles, decisions or what have you.


I would love to continue this conversation via e-mail but you don't have one posted

Riiiiiiight. OR, it could be because it's his job, and he made a decision to get a paycheck. Hmmm. Which one is the logical, rational choice?

It is amazing how many people still look at movies as real life. They actually associate Mel Gibson with the person in 'Braveheart' or 'PayBack' as if Mel Gibson actually killed all those people. In REALITY, Mel Gibson does a lot of standing in front of blue screens with props in his hands. He says his lines and he gets a paycheck. There is nothing immoral about that.

 

[SuperShaz]

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic

I think Mel is just trying to make some $$$

If his only goal was to make some more money, there are a million different movies he could do. And I doubt he would go as far as to make the entire movie spoken in Hebrew if his goal was to make lots of money. American audiences don't like movies in subtitles. Not to mention, Mel used his own money to make this movie.

Is he hoping the movie makes money? Probably. But I doubt that is his only goal.

This is NOT a documentary IF your definition of a documentary is that it contains the actual people doing the actual things they did, rather than actors acting out the things that happened. If that is your definition though, then there can be no documentaries about anything that happened prior to movie cameras being invented. This means that any movie about Christopher Columbus, Julius Caeser, George Washington, or Napolean is actually just a hollywood movie and not a documentary. Even the ones that are meant as educational and shown on PBS or TLC or the History Channel.

 

[Toddlizzle]

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh, but it certainly was a lynch mob. The Jewish religious leaders orchestrated the arrest of Jesus, and they were the ones who insisted to the Roman authorities that Jesus was an enemy of the state. Then when the Romans tried to free Jesus, giving the crowd a choice between releasing Jesus and a murderer named Barabbas, the mob demanded, "give us Barabbas, give us Barabbas." Finally, the crucifixion itself was quite a spectacle of onlookers mocking Christ throughout the entire ordeal. It wasn't just the Jews, but it wasn't just the Romans, either.

 

[Toddlizzle]

Originally posted by: VaG

Originally posted by: TheCoop
I have heard great reviews for this movie. Only one thing, I know the ending already. Read THE BOOK, its better.

So they have two things in common. They're both fairy tales with the same ending.

Why is that necessary? That's the perfect example of trolling.

 

[Toddlizzle]

Originally posted by: db
Why are some people so reactive about Christianity?

- They have had it shoved down their throats in the past; or,
- It tells them not to do stuff they want to do; or,
- They want concrete, definitive proof or it's not valid; or,
- They support the "other side"

Note to Christians: if you want to show people how great Christianity is, you must do it by being a *good example*.
I used to have people at work who were jerks or hosers telling everyone they should be Christians. My attitude to those particular people was:
"In *your* case, the best thing you could do to promote Christianity is to shut up."

Obviously, a thread about a deal for fans of a movie which hasn't even been released yet about the death of Christ is going to carry some Christian overtones.

For someone who doesn't want any Christian influence, you sure came to the wrong place. What are you doing in this thread, anyway? Are you pretty excited about this hot deal?

 

[c627627]

Originally posted by: Toddlizzle: Then when the Romans tried to free Jesus, giving the crowd a choice between releasing Jesus and a murderer...

Originally posted by: Toddlizzle: ...onlookers mocking Christ throughout the entire ordeal.

Self rule was big in Roman provinces, was it?

In medieval Europe, individuals shouted and cheered at every single execution that took place there.



Last month, General Clark (the very same one running for the post of the President of our country now) testified at the Hague.

Clark said to the Serbian President: But how is it then, if you have such influence, that you allowed [them] to kill all those people in Srebrenica?'' And Milosevic looked at me and he paused for a moment. He then said, "Well, Gen. Clark,'' he said, "I warned [them] not to do this, but [they] didn't listen to me. I, for example, believe firmly until the present day that this was done by a group of mercenaries."

More than 8,000 people were executed in that one town in 1995. It's 2004 and most people in Serbia believe their President had nothing to do with it and place the blame on someone else. Guess who? The victims themselves.



It is always in people who hold executive power that our society places primary blame on.
Ask yourself who held executive power at the time when the Romans could execute any one of those "Jewish leaders" if they so chose at a whim?


"History is the raw material for nationalist of ethnic or fundamentalist ideologies, as poppies are the raw material for heroin addiction. The past is an essential element in these ideologies. If there is no suitable past, it can always be invented. The past legitimizes. The past gives a more glorious background to a present that doesn't have that much to show for itself."

 

[UVAJim]

Originally posted by: QuicknDirty
This thread is getting a bit touchy now...however-

Curious. I wonder what would happen today if someone went around saying they were the son of god or a conduit to a deity? Would they be hailed as a messiah? Oh, that's right... The nuthouses are full of them, or it's ended in some tragic incident (Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite). Could it be that in simpler times, people were more easily bumfuzzled into believing something they really wanted to believe in? Why is there any reason to believe that Jesus was nothing more than a highly charismatic cult leader? Because a "book" that was written from a story passed down from generation to generation, translated several times over into different languages to become what is known today as "The Bible"?

It's scary that while many people hail christianity, they ignore the fact that historically (and even today), their beliefs were forced onto others, using food, medicine, charity, and even war as a tool to coerce or brainwash other civilizations into seeing "the way" destroying artifacts and other historical documents because they didn't jive with what they believed to be true... and even today fight to have the teaching of evolution removed from our public schools because it blatently and scientifically contradicts their book of fairy tales.

What gives christianity the power to decide which beliefs are right or wrong? What is it any different that the belief of early Greeks or Romans? The Egyptians? The Incas or Aztecs? The American Indians? Because they have a book that says so? LMAO.



Factnet

QuickNDirty, kudos to you (and I seriously mean this) for holding Christianity to the same standard as other belief systems. As a Christian, I feel there is no point in following something which is illogical, and I have thought about this very idea you are bringing up, about "cult leaders" and how Jesus, in his day, could have been seen as one.

What I have to say to you, is an argument actually brought up in the Bible, by Jewish leaders at the time. They were arguing about whether or not to kill Jesus (this was well before they actually decided to), and their leaders were bringing up arguments. One leader, I believe it was Gamaliel (though correct me if I'm wrong) brought up this point: there have been cult leaders before who drew a following, but their followings dispersed. Gamaliel point out that if what Jesus was doing wasn't from God, it would be dispersed, just like the followings of all the other leaders who claimed to be the Christ. The flip side, however, is that if it was from God, Gamaliel knew that Jesus couldn't be stopped.

Two thousand years later, we sit here, able to analyze Christian history. The church started EXTREMELY small, and they were PERSECUTED INTENSELY. Church services are held sunday morning not because that is the sabbath day to worship God (which is actually Saturday), but because that was when early Christians could most safely meet. The church has survived because of those first few followers who were SO ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED of Jesus' divinity that they would be willing to risk their lives for him. Some people may try to pass it off, saying things along the lines of "oh people were stupid then" or "oh people were gullible then". Perhaps it is a matter of opinion, but I find it hard to believe that Stephen would be stoned, the apostles would be martyred, and even "everyday" "lesser known" Christians would be fed to the lions if they hadn't been given insurmountable evidence that Jesus was the Christ.

As for the Jews at that time . . . some started the Christian Church, and some crucified Christ. The sects which crucified Christ were just that - sects (most notably the Pharisees and the Sadduccees). At this point in history, there was a bit of a twistedness in Judaism, where legalism was the way to God, and not faith, which was what brought the founder of the Jewish and Christian religions (Abraham) to God. Just a bit of history.

Jim