It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Passions of The Christ

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
The Truth is that Jesus was part of a REFORM MOVEMENT - of a Religion & a Culture that had been Corrupted & was in much need of Reformation!


Great observation Seraphim


Okay, this is gonna be a bit of a tongue twister but...

Chrisitianity is not the true religion of God, the true religion was something practiced earlier that was lost and became corrupted and altered and all that. JC pops up and brings the faith back to what it should be, and basically back on track, and the faith is named Christianity in his honour type thing. Is that what you are syaing?




posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   
jesus was a revolutionary!

i have also seen the movie passion of the christ.
not in the cinema, but in the comfort of my own home.
anyway, movie has shocked me. i have seen "the last temptation of christ", which is a great movie, but more a "gangster mystery" version of christ.
passion is just the suffering, the pain, the sadness, just last few hours out of life of J.C. i think that movie is very very authentic, as far as the "enviroment" created for the movie is concerned (the language spoken, JC being a black-haired-black-eyed jewish person, "real" torture scenes etc).
i have to admnit that movie was very emotional for me too. i am not catholic, but i am an atheist. from that "torture" scene on, i had tears in my eyes all the time. it is really sad, how was one man tortured and sacrificed for his "revolutionary ideas and concepts". how he was "betrayed" by his own people, how he still stood up and used "his special powers" to endure and stay alive during his "passion".

"forgive them Father, they do not know what they do!"

but the best for me was his last miracle, as he was alive:
in the last few minutes of the movie, when they start to nail him to the cross, and they have to turn him and the cross around, to stuck the nails on the other side. as they turned him "on the other side", every "normal mortal" would fall down with his body, just the hands would remain on the cross, since they are NAILED in. but not. jesus stayed on the cross, as if he was "glued" to it, without any falling down. and maria magdalena was the only one who saw that, since she was kneeling and crying.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
it is really sad, how was one man tortured and sacrificed for his "revolutionary ideas and concepts". how he was "betrayed" by his own people, how he still stood up and used "his special powers" to endure and stay alive during his "passion".

"forgive them Father, they do not know what they do!"


What adds to the sadness even more though is that throughout our history Christianity also dished this ill treatment for those similar. Not for a religous belief, but for scientific.

edited so it was written in english not garble


[edit on 12/1/2005 by Bondi]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bondi

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
The Truth is that Jesus was part of a REFORM MOVEMENT - of a Religion & a Culture that had been Corrupted & was in much need of Reformation!


Great observation Seraphim

...the true religion was something practiced earlier that was lost and became corrupted and altered and all that. JC pops up and brings the faith back to what it should be, and basically back on track, and the faith is named Christianity in his honour type thing. Is that what you are syaing?


That's how I understand it. Throughout the Old Testament, there have been accounts of things 'not going well' and the punishments thereof to bring mankind back. Sometimes there were people in generations who follow God (some examples: Moses, Abraham, Job, etc.), sometimes not, resulting in wrath (The Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.). In any case, it was the people drifting away from God, not the other way around. This time around, instead of smacking up mankind, he sends down His son to die for us in hopes that we'll say: "Wait a sec, he killed his son instead of us." throwing a real thinker into the mix. On top of that, we get all this instruction on 'how to think' instead of 'here's the law'. You can see how this different approach would put traditionalists on edge, claiming Jesus isn't from God because God ain't never been so nice and self-sacrificing before. As Jesus said though, they've been missing the point of the laws and actions of God, hence the heavy emphasis on love, faith, hope, understanding, and forgiveness. Keep in mind as well, it was fore-told in the Old Testament that Jesus would come as a "light of the world...born of a virgin..." and "from Galilee". That's why in the gospels there were boat-loads of people whispering and talking "is he the one? Is he the messiah?" When everything clicked, he had quite a following. Some however scoffed "can anything good come from Galilee?" and stuff like "he's not THE one. We need a king..." etc.

I took out the first phrase you'd used to refine to:
Christianity is not the 'first' religion of God, but it is true to God.

Glad you brought this up Bondi, it's really weird because I've been flipping through the Old Testament these last couple days (not something I'm in the habit of doing, though I should) looking for connections between the old and new and your question brought about a lot of insight. Thanks!


[edit on 12-1-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

I took out the first phrase you'd used to refine to:
Christianity is not the 'first' religion of God, but it is true to God.

Glad you brought this up Bondi, it's really weird because I've been flipping through the Old Testament these last couple days (not something I'm in the habit of doing, though I should) looking for connections between the old and new and your question brought about a lot of insight. Thanks!


I guess if you want to cover all bases it is both, not the true religion due to it not being called the same, although it is because it practises the same, and I would supposed exactly the same, as the first. What was the first one called?

I have been told, due to the contradiction between new and old, that the new reaplaces the old and that the old testament is irrelevant. Christianity must be one of the most confusing things on the planet. If you put 100 people claiming to be Christian in a room no 2 would agree on what their religion is, or what it takes to be classed Christian.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bondi
I guess if you want to cover all bases it is both, not the true religion due to it not being called the same, although it is because it practises the same, and I would supposed exactly the same, as the first. What was the first one called?


I don't recall it having a name per say. There's with God, and without God. Those who had to have some kind of name called it from the land of Judea or Judea-ism. Those who followed Jesus during his life were considered followers of 'the way', renamed to Christianity postmortem.


Originally posted by Bondi
I have been told, due to the contradiction between new and old, that the new reaplaces the old and that the old testament is irrelevant.


That's so not true. Jesus did in fact say Matthew 5:17 "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." This says to me that we lost an understanding what was meant by 'the law'. We were so bent on the rules themselves, we couldn't see why we followed them or why they were given. Also, you know what they say about those who do not learn from history...


Originally posted by Bondi
Christianity must be one of the most confusing things on the planet. If you put 100 people claiming to be Christian in a room no 2 would agree on what their religion is, or what it takes to be classed Christian.


Hehe, first we're called mindless sheep, then we're told we think too differently. Which is it? What it takes is clearly defined in John 3:16 (see also the link on my signature). If anyone disputes this, they are not Christian. Why does it have to be confusing? Does God say anywhere "Thou shalt be confused"? He's the God of clarity (which comes from truth). James 1:5 "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him."



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
So then it is clear that there is no hell? You quote John 3:16 which states clearly that the alternative to eternal life is that you perish. That is pretty clear to me that you don't go to hell.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
So then it is clear that there is no hell? You quote John 3:16 which states clearly that the alternative to eternal life is that you perish. That is pretty clear to me that you don't go to hell.


He also says in Matt 18:7 "Woe to the world because of things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell."

So...says he there is Hell and there is an eternal fire. What did he mean by perish then? Well, looking at the definition:

Main Entry: per·ish
Pronunciation: 'per-ish
Function: verb
1 : to become destroyed or ruined

Yeah. I'd say life without God and being in the eternal fire will destroy and ruin you.


[edit on 12-1-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
He also says in


That's the bit that confuses me.
Seems there is a piece of scripture to cover everything, but at the same time nothing definitive.

In example there could be a piece to say the sky is blue, but whe the sky appears red and someone goes but the biblel says, you get

"It also says".

I had a piece of scripture quoted to me in repsonse to a question I posted, which if I can find again I will edit this with a link, which to be honest I thought was an excellent answer, but I found out from some one, who was a Christian scholar, that the actual piece referenced marriage and nothing to do with the subject matter of the question.

Probably doesn't make much sense without the post


If only all Christians could agree on it all. How is someone supposed to know what it is to be a Christrian when they can't work out what a Christian is?



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bondi

Originally posted by saint4God
He also says in


That's the bit that confuses me.
Seems there is a piece of scripture to cover everything, but at the same time nothing definitive.


The OT was definitive and that was a problem because of everyone getting wrapped up in the absolute law and not what it stood for or the thinking behind it.


Originally posted by Bondi
In example there could be a piece to say the sky is blue, but whe the sky appears red and someone goes but the biblel says, you get

"It also says".

I had a piece of scripture quoted to me in repsonse to a question I posted, which if I can find again I will edit this with a link, which to be honest I thought was an excellent answer, but I found out from some one, who was a Christian scholar, that the actual piece referenced marriage and nothing to do with the subject matter of the question.


Bingo! See, there is such thing as taking scripture out of context. When I said "it also says" it wasn't contradictory to the previous point, it was adding to it as in there is more to the story. It was supporting that people are ruined/destroyed when they go to Hell. Both phrases came from Jesus' mouth. Both were addressing salvation and sin. If you find something Biblical in conflict, it's because one of them is not being considered with the rest of the chapter or book. There's a chapter in there where a guy imprisoned is blasting God. Now if I just quote it, and say "the Bible says God hates his people" then I'd be totally off.


Originally posted by Bondi
Probably doesn't make much sense without the post


I've seen some like it too. Again, people not considering the chapter or even the Bible as a whole.


Originally posted by Bondi
If only all Christians could agree on it all. How is someone supposed to know what it is to be a Christrian when they can't work out what a Christian is?


It is clearly defined in John 3:16 and discussed in the link in my signature line. There should not be any dispute there whether Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. They have different ways of running the church but if that passage stands, then they are Christian. Not to say sometimes Christians cannot be misguided, mistaken, or uninformed but the core should remain the same else they are not Christian. They are the ones we like to put into quotes as 'Christian'. I encourage everyone who is Christian to make sure they not only read, but understand doctrine through study and discussion, else it's easy to misrepresent. Hehe, I guess that goes for me too.

[edit on 12-1-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I think Gibson did a good job but he left out the most important part, the Resurrection of Christ. Jesus died having never commited a sin, he did not have to die, and certainly the torture and crucifixion was all man not God. God did not ordain his sons murder. Jesus choose to die for us, he didn't have to do it. The wages of sin is death. He did not 'have' to be tortured and crucified for our sins, only die. The fact that he was beaten unmercifully and then nailed to a cross only intensifies my adoration and love for him. I'm certain that if Jesus had waited until our generation to save us then he would meet a similar fate. Greed and ignorance are everlastingly human.
God ressurected his son after three days. Humankind was no longer bound by their sins and resulting death, Jesus had "paid" that price for us.
The "big deal" about the movie was way overblown, oddly enough by people who could benefit (spiritually) the most from it.
Lastly, it's odd to me that the cross has become the symbol for Christ. It's an instrument of extreme torture and pain, but it's worn around millions of necks and displayed prominently in every church in the world. The cross does represent Christs love for us, He endured it for us, not himself. But to me the empty tomb is the most important "symbol" of Christs last days on earth.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TumblingSnake
Lastly, it's odd to me that the cross has become the symbol for Christ. It's an instrument of extreme torture and pain, but it's worn around millions of necks and displayed prominently in every church in the world. The cross does represent Christs love for us, He endured it for us, not himself. But to me the empty tomb is the most important "symbol" of Christs last days on earth.


The crosses I wear are empty, meaning he has risen. I guess it's the same as the empty tomb as you see it. Personally I don't need them, but they're nice reminders and I wear them as conversation starters to those I meet. I was REALLY surprised that random strangers would strike up a conversation when I'm in an elevator and such.

[edit on 12-1-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Hmm... I just want to remind people again that Race & Religion are Not Necessarily Linked! Sure Jesus was Semitic by Race - but he certainly was NOT an ORTHODOX Jew! He did a LOT of things to upset the established Rabbihood at the time! I think that Jesus Loved his people & wanted to help them! He saw how Corrupt the Judaic Religion & the Judaic RabbiHood had gotten & went on a Mission to REFORM it! I also Imagine that he wasn't such a big fan of the Roman Empire's Occupation of his Homeland either!

I want to disagree with people that say that he was ONLY Interested it Preaching to Jews! I think that he wanted to show people that the
True Nature of God was in LOVE! People were taking the "Old Law" too Literally (still happens today) & in the Process the Original meaning got Corrupted! To Jews: "God does Not want your Sacrifices". To Gentiles: "If God required you to be Circumcised the Father would beget you this way at Birth". To ALL: "We are ALL part of the Living God. The Kingdom of Heaven is within us! Stop your bickering & fighting! Little Children LOVE one another"!!!

Can you see now why BOTH SIDES thought that he was a THREAT & wanted to get rid of him?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join