02-24-2004, 08:18 PM
for me, it's the happy ending. 
02-24-2004, 08:19 PM
Here are a couple of comments concerning a theory I heard about Jesus’ live with consideration of the state of Jerusalem at the BC.
The poor, the sick, and the crippled were not allowed into the Temple. There was a view that God had punished people and those with lepersy et al. "deserved" it. The Temple High Priests had their own separate entrances so that their cleanliness would not be tarnished by a touch by someone unclean. Unclean being defined by Leviticus (I believe), rules around women menstruating, handling of raw meats, etc...
Jesus was greatly bothered by how much luxury the Priests lived in. Many of them had several baths, necessary for purification, but extravagant compared to the general population. There was a comparison to the wealth that the priests lived in and the Romans.
Jesus intentionally went to Jerusalem on Passover to cause a scene. Passover would have been the most packed day in the city. Coupled with angst over the Roman occupation and just general confusion and emotions of a large number of people in one place was viewed as a powder keg. In fact, Jesus entry into the city on a donkey was meant to directly combat the Priests because of a prophesy. He meant to fulfill it to cause a problem.
Judas was a good friend of Jesus and not a betrayer. Messengers customarily were paid a fee and Jesus sent Judas to summon the temple guards who were looking for him. Judas was not paid a fee to betray Jesus.
Basically, the theory is that Jesus martyred himself over the abuses in the Jewish religion. In some aspects, he is a reformer, just as Martin Luther was to the Catholic Church. He challenged the authority and the power of the High Priests, he never challenged the Romans.
The poor, the sick, and the crippled were not allowed into the Temple. There was a view that God had punished people and those with lepersy et al. "deserved" it. The Temple High Priests had their own separate entrances so that their cleanliness would not be tarnished by a touch by someone unclean. Unclean being defined by Leviticus (I believe), rules around women menstruating, handling of raw meats, etc...
Jesus was greatly bothered by how much luxury the Priests lived in. Many of them had several baths, necessary for purification, but extravagant compared to the general population. There was a comparison to the wealth that the priests lived in and the Romans.
Jesus intentionally went to Jerusalem on Passover to cause a scene. Passover would have been the most packed day in the city. Coupled with angst over the Roman occupation and just general confusion and emotions of a large number of people in one place was viewed as a powder keg. In fact, Jesus entry into the city on a donkey was meant to directly combat the Priests because of a prophesy. He meant to fulfill it to cause a problem.
Judas was a good friend of Jesus and not a betrayer. Messengers customarily were paid a fee and Jesus sent Judas to summon the temple guards who were looking for him. Judas was not paid a fee to betray Jesus.
Basically, the theory is that Jesus martyred himself over the abuses in the Jewish religion. In some aspects, he is a reformer, just as Martin Luther was to the Catholic Church. He challenged the authority and the power of the High Priests, he never challenged the Romans.
02-24-2004, 08:19 PM
rooner, learn how to cut and paste, ass.
02-24-2004, 08:22 PM
I have been watching television with closed captioning for about 5 years now (when my wife and I were dating we talked on the phone a lot and she'd get annoyed if the tv was on too loud cause she knew that I wasn't paying attention. Closed Captioning fixed that. Now with my kid who one night will sleep through an explosion and the next night a cricket chirp wakes him up. CLosed captioning is a must.)
With all that being said subtitles are no big deal.
*On a side note nothing irritates me more than the misuse of the popular phrase "I couldn't care less". Nice save though rooner.
With all that being said subtitles are no big deal.
*On a side note nothing irritates me more than the misuse of the popular phrase "I couldn't care less". Nice save though rooner.
02-24-2004, 08:22 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Keyser Soze
rooner, learn how to cut and paste, ass.
I got it in an e mail, Ill be damned if Im going through and deleting all that shit for you fucks. You guys dont mean THAT much to me. Read around em bitches. :kiss:
02-24-2004, 08:23 PM
nope, not reading that garbage post, clean it up first.
02-24-2004, 08:28 PM
A quick google and a clean version is found. Turns out the e mail I got is already an urban legend. Damn the speed of the internet.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl...assion.htm
This is a review originally purported to be written by Paul Harvey but was actually penned by Kieth Fournier of Christianity Today. We have the infamous internet to thank for the confusion. But it is still an excellent review.
I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of MelGibson's film "The Passion," I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.
I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever
experienced.
In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.
One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As
she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.
At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way.
Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest
right is the right to hear the truth.
We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed
the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion."
It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion." You will be as well. Don't miss it!
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl...assion.htm
This is a review originally purported to be written by Paul Harvey but was actually penned by Kieth Fournier of Christianity Today. We have the infamous internet to thank for the confusion. But it is still an excellent review.
I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of MelGibson's film "The Passion," I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.
I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever
experienced.
In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.
One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As
she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.
At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way.
Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest
right is the right to hear the truth.
We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed
the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion."
It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion." You will be as well. Don't miss it!
02-24-2004, 08:29 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Keyser Soze
nope, not reading that garbage post, clean it up first.
happy now cry baby? :tongue:
02-24-2004, 08:30 PM
I just want to see it to see what all the fuss is about....after that, it's the last temptation of Christ...another one just to see what all the fuss was about..
02-24-2004, 08:34 PM
Funny thing about The Last Temptation is it angered a lot of christians. I think it was right on the money. In a purely theological portrayal of the gospel point of view.