ophelia wrote:
Dominion is a biblical scholar, but if I bring this thread to his attention, he'll never shut up.

How does someone in their 20's qualify as a "biblical scholar"??
I'm honestly just curious, because I didn't think he had a position with a university or was questioned by professionals when it comes to biblical inquiries. I could be incorrect though.

Or is it just because he had himself crucified in the middle of the Old City? And I wonder if that was historically accurate, because I was there and doubt it was. I figured he might be more learned in the pagan ways, since he drew some fancy pentacle on the sidewalk with chalk one day...

Buttercup wrote:

ophelia wrote:
Dominion is a biblical scholar, but if I bring this thread to his attention, he'll never shut up.

How does someone in their 20's qualify as a "biblical scholar"??
I'm honestly just curious, because I didn't think he had a position with a university or was questioned by professionals when it comes to biblical inquiries. I could be incorrect though.

Or is it just because he had himself crucified in the middle of the Old City? And I wonder if that was historically accurate, because I was there and doubt it was. I figured he might be more learned in the pagan ways, since he drew some fancy pentacle on the sidewalk with chalk one day...

Since you predicted a problem, you had to instigate one, right Morgan? However, I am uninterested. If you are interested in what Chris studies, or even in the definition of a scholar (I did not say expert), talk to him. I'm not sure what your version of "historically accurate" is referring to... pick a text (or a gospel) for me. And no, he was never pagan. Drawing something on the ground in chalk only qualifies you as a sidewalk graffiti artist.

Perhaps you could add some insight about the topic of this thread, which is the movie The Passion of the Christ. If you would like to ask Chris any questions, feel free to send me a message and I will forward it to him. Old grudges are silly, move along darlin'.

Oh, and JaNell, I think it would be great if Chris and Cam were able to exchange some ideas. They could probably learn a lot from each other.

Someone mentioned earlier that Jesus would have actually spoken Greek, which is probably true. When you see the movie, notice the shifts in language between Latin and Aramaic. It is interesting that when Christ is talking privately with Pilate, he switches to Latin. Hmmmm... How did a carpenter from Galilee learn Latin.... any thoughts?

ophelia wrote:
Since you predicted a problem, you had to instigate one, right Morgan? However, I am uninterested. If you are interested in what Chris studies, or even in the definition of a scholar (I did not say expert), talk to him. I'm not sure what your version of "historically accurate" is referring to... pick a text (or a gospel) for me. And no, he was never pagan. Drawing something on the ground in chalk only qualifies you as a sidewalk graffiti artist.

Perhaps you could add some insight about the topic of this thread, which is the movie The Passion of the Christ. If you would like to ask Chris any questions, feel free to send me a message and I will forward it to him. Old grudges are silly, move along darlin'.

I am not instigating a problem, I just wanted to know what qualified him as a biblical scholar. *shrug* I have not yet seen the movie, so I really can't add much of anything except my not so humble opinions on arguing over religion and overreacting about a film.

Actually, I think that it would be neat to have a biblical scholar aboard the thread, because I myself have never even read the bible. I agree with Torch_32 that it has been insanely mistranslated, and I prefer to read it in as close to the original text as possible.

I have no grudge against either of you...sorry if you hold ill will towards me for asking a question. You are getting a little more "touchy" about a question than most anyone on here has gotten about they beliefs they hold dear.

If someone on here claimed to be a scholar on goatcheese, I'd ask what their credentials are....sorry.

Ok..I appear to have been in error and I apologize. Before asking you what qualified someone as a "scholar", I should have looked up the definition myself.

schol·ar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sklr)
n.

A learned person.
A specialist in a given branch of knowledge: a classical scholar.
One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student.
A student who holds or has held a particular scholarship.


So, according to definition, he is a scholar. I'm a scholar, you are a scholar. I guess I need to just pick a random subject to be a scholar of so it sounds neat.

Buttercup-scholar of the oral arts.

Buttercup wrote:I am not instigating a problem, I just wanted to know what qualified him as a biblical scholar. *shrug* I have not yet seen the movie, so I really can't add much of anything except my not so humble opinions on arguing over religion and overreacting about a film.

Actually, I think that it would be neat to have a biblical scholar aboard the thread, because I myself have never even read the bible. I agree with Torch_32 that it has been insanely mistranslated, and I prefer to read it in as close to the original text as possible.

I have no grudge against either of you...sorry if you hold ill will towards me for asking a question. You are getting a little more "touchy" about a question than most anyone on here has gotten about they beliefs they hold dear.

If someone on here claimed to be a scholar on goatcheese, I'd ask what their credentials are....sorry.

I'm sorry if you think I was getting touchy, but you are the first person on this thread to call someone out by name and challenge them. Chris isn't even posting. I think perhaps you are confused by the definition of the word scholar. A scholar is "One who studies in the ‘schools’ at a university; a member of a university" or "One who is receiving, or has received, his instruction or training from a particular master; a pupil " (OED). Chris is studying under one of the most respected professors in the country right now (in the religious field), so he has an incredible mentor. . No one here is claiming to be an expert, and I didn't think anyone had to post their credentials on the forum. I'm not holding ill will- your post just seemed strange within the context of the conversation, and it seems that all you posted before this was "there's going to be a problem with this thread." There wasn't. No big deal. Like I said, if you are really interested, and not just wanting to start a problem, I'd be happy to forward any questions you have to him.

Moving right along...

Buttercup wrote:Ok..I appear to have been in error and I apologize. Before asking you what qualified someone as a "scholar", I should have looked up the definition myself.

schol·ar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sklr)
n.

A learned person.
A specialist in a given branch of knowledge: a classical scholar.
One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student.
A student who holds or has held a particular scholarship.


So, according to definition, he is a scholar. I'm a scholar, you are a scholar. I guess I need to just pick a random subject to be a scholar of so it sounds neat.

Buttercup-scholar of the oral arts.

You beat me to it... I posted mine after you posted yours.

Damn... we're taking up a whole page.

As a side note some of you were talking about the christians starting to use the cross as their symbol. On one of my tours in the middle east I went to capadosia (sp) in turkey. In this area they have a community that was built by some christians. They have many churches there. They believe on of two churches there, the churche of the light or the apple church, was the first place the cross was used in christian referance. For those interested this might be a good trip for you to make (instead of rome or bethleham) I look through my old pictures ans see If I can find the pictures of them.

(they also had a Church of the Darkness (or hell) but like the apple church was closed while I was there)

hmmm just a thought....random at that....Wonder what Christ would think if he came back today, and all the christians are wearing crosses as a sign of their faith....not to mention all of the "fashion symbol" crosses.......I mean presuming he didnt fortell it....wouldnt he be surpeised that one day , after all that crucifixion.......we are all wearing the thing he hung on till his death.......around our necks......hmmm....shock and awww

Mistress Eve(L) wrote:hmmm just a thought....random at that....Wonder what Christ would think if he came back today, and all the christians are wearing crosses as a sign of their faith....not to mention all of the "fashion symbol" crosses.......I mean presuming he didnt fortell it....wouldnt he be surpeised that one day , after all that crucifixion.......we are all wearing the thing he hung on till his death.......around our necks......hmmm....shock and awww

That is interesting. Mormons don't wear crosses or have them in their churches because crosses sort of go against whole "thou shalt not make unto any graven image thing". Although I believe it refers probably to statues of other gods or worship of these statues...I think that some people do sort of worship the cross in a sick way.

Personally, I think you should celebrate the mans life, not his death. The fact that he died for our sins or whatever on a cross has absolutely no bearing for me. I didn't ask him to do that personally. However, I think the man had some awesome things to say during his life that should be more paid attention to than his death, which I believe is just a method that christianity uses to make kids feel guilty. "Look what he did-for YOU. He suffered a painful death FOR YOU. Now, eat your brussel sprouts FOR JESUS, because they aren't as bad as what he went through."

Thats why I don't care much for the bleeding pictures of him on tshirts with the crown of thorns and stuff that some christians wear. Its odd, some of the same people that deem pornography obscene think its ok to glorify a violent death, and post images of that on tshirts and bumper stickers, as well as images of aborted fetuses to get their point across.

As a parent, I'm much more upset if my child sees violent images than I am if he sees a nekkid woman.

I don't think violence was a gift any creator gave us, however, I do think sex is a natural and lovely thing. And if there is a god, it most certainly was a gift.

for those who didnt like the movie....they probley hated the book

death, which I believe is just a method that christianity uses to make kids feel guilty. "Look what he did-for YOU. He suffered a painful death FOR YOU. Now, eat your brussel sprouts FOR JESUS, because they aren't as bad as what he went through."

I used to know this super crazy catholic chick who would make a cake on easter with the bleeding crucifix on it. ........"Ummmmm Im not eating that" OK I said this becasue its kind of a metaphor for how extreme people are.......Wearing the bloody t shirts and all....
As an Orthodox...........I can speak for us by saying Easter is one of our most important Holidays. Its just the Death and the resurrection is the most revered.....HOWEVER......its never been drilled into my head, GUILT. Well not by the orthodox church. The suffering is something that should be remembered but not harped on.......every bit of Easter is important........not jsut the passion.
I still think that if Christ came back right now.....he might be a little weirded out by everyone wearing crosses. I mean assuming he didnt already know about it. I mean think if you died in a car crash and then one day a long time from now you came back and everyone was wearing little cars with peopl under them....charms around their neck....you'd be like DUDE! WTF!????

Lost Traveler wrote:As a side note some of you were talking about the christians starting to use the cross as their symbol. On one of my tours in the middle east I went to capadosia (sp) in turkey. In this area they have a community that was built by some christians. They have many churches there. They believe on of two churches there, the churche of the light or the apple church, was the first place the cross was used in christian referance. For those interested this might be a good trip for you to make (instead of rome or bethleham) I look through my old pictures ans see If I can find the pictures of them.

(they also had a Church of the Darkness (or hell) but like the apple church was closed while I was there)

Do you remember when the churches were built?

[quote="Onibubba"]
I guess what I am confused about is this: What is of more importance to christianity, the fact that he died or the fact that he rose? I'm inclined to believe it is his death as that seems to be the focus of how the religion is protrayed - and I am not talking about this movie, I am talking about things like t-shirts (This Blood's for you!), jewelry, and bumper stickers - sign of expression of faith. quote]
I think the answer to this question depends on whom you listen to, at least nowadays. Traditionally, I think the one piece of doctrine that just about every denomination of Christianity completely accepts is that he rose from the dead. The most holy day in the Christian calendar is Easter, which celebrates the resurrection.
In modern times, some folks who ID themselves as Christians (myself included) aren't entirely sure about that... From this perspective, Jesus is viewed as a moral reformer/philosopher of sorts who was killed for his viewpoints, and the important thing about how the story of his death is that he is yet another example of people killing those who question the established order/morality (I used Socrates as another example of this earlier).
Some people who accept this viewpoint also believe he was divine or at least divinely-inspired, as well, although consensus is split. This viewpoint also puts a much stronger emphasis on his "love thy neighbor/turn the other cheek" teaching and pretty much rejects most of the Old Testament, including the 10 Commandments, in favor of his admonition to simply "love thy neighbor" and "love God."
One Biblical scholar at a Nashville Christian college made some serious waves last year when he was quoted in the Nashville scene as saying "Jesus either rotted in his grave or was eaten by scavengers" (that's as close to the exact quote as I can remember -- I lost the article).

There are exceptions, but most seem to focus on he DIED for you (guilt sin fear) instead of he ROSE for you (redemption love hope).[/
Basically, mainstream denominations accept both of these -- they aren't mutually exclusive. He died as a sacrifice to redeem mankind and his resurrection was a demonstration of God's power/mercy/something like that. The reason I said "something like that" is I find a lot of the logic here a bit hard to follow, and that's coming from someone who's been in (and out) of the church his whole life.

Wow. THank you. THat was a very well thought out post! FOr me personally the wholes 3 days is important, but you are right I feel like a lot of christians focus on the guilt (He died for your sins) rather than the resurrection (He rose again to overcome death) I guess its all about perspective and approach. Funny no one ever mentions that he actually descended into hell........before he rose again. I would think thats pretty important too.

Ophelia, do you think you could ask Chris my original question that started this post? That's really all I wanted to know when I posted this thread. I had no idea that THIS thread would be used to discuss Christianity, historically speaking and otherwise. I thought someone else might start a thread where the issues of Christianity would be debated. Anyhoo...

I wanted to know if all people crucified during those times were first beaten to death within an inch of their lives.

And that's rather neat that Chris studies these kinds of things. I would LOVE to have a chat with him sometime.

Hi, Morgan. I hope somewhere in this thread that I did NOT offend you. I have really tried to live and let live and am very careful these days not to upset you. Even though you and I will probably never be close, I hate having this lingering yucky stuff in the air.

torch_32 wrote:Hi, Morgan. I hope somewhere in this thread that I did NOT offend you. I have really tried to live and let live and am very careful these days not to upset you. Even though you and I will probably never be close, I hate having this lingering yucky stuff in the air.

No, you have not offended me in this thread. Apologies are good for clearing up "yucky stuff".

I just got back from the movie, and I think its up there with that Romeo and Juliet remake with Leonardo DiCaprio as one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I guess maybe I thought it would be up there with Braveheart or would at least have lots of good cinematography, but apart from a couple scenes...nope. It's prolly cliche' but I thought satan was probably the most well done part of it. I'll probably write more on it later. I would have gotten up and left, but I was with Thrall and didn't want to leave her or have the wailing people in the audience think I was as weak stomached as those who ran out balling their eyes out like they were witnessing something real. I almost want to hunt down the actor and show everyone..."see, he's ok. It was just a movie he's alright."

To me it was simply glorifying a violent death to get kneejerk emotional reactions from believers. That to me is a terrible unoriginal way to move people. And throughout the whole thing I was thinking of the millions of people that have suffered just as bad or worse in christ or god's name. I felt more pity for Mary than Christ, perhaps, because I'm a mother. But then I thought of the pain mothers of those killed in the crusades, salem witch trials, the holocaust, the battles in Israel, Ireland etc, felt and the pity faded real quick.

So I left pretty disgusted, disapointed and even pissed off. It especially bothered me that people brought their kids. Me and Thrall were joking about kids having nightmares about bleeding jesus' under their beds or in their closets.

Bleh.

Hey I have a question....guess this can be directed at anyone really......In the movie...the theif on the left has a cup or a chalise hanging from the crossbar on a chain, right about where his hand was....What was that for....I mean it wasnt like he could just reach out and get it and there was no water way up on that cross....any answers? Ophelia you can pass this on to Chris too...Im asking my preist tomorrow to get his input.

TheSym wrote:I don't understand why there isn't more being said about the anti-romanism in the movie.

I have to agree. Fucking Romans.

They shat all over the Hebrews, Gauls, Germanics, ad nauseum...

Hey, that brings a new buzz phrase to mind: "Kill a Roman for Christ!"

torch_32 wrote:I am studying Hebrew and Judaism in order to convert. I take classes at the conservative shul here in Knoxville, and I'm doing a lot of reading on my own.

Two questions: How much (if anything) do they charge for the Hebrew classes, and do you have to be converting to anything to take them?

iblis wrote:

torch_32 wrote:I am studying Hebrew and Judaism in order to convert. I take classes at the conservative shul here in Knoxville, and I'm doing a lot of reading on my own.

Two questions: How much (if anything) do they charge for the Hebrew classes, and do you have to be converting to anything to take them?

Hebrew language classes are free (I'm pretty sure). You just have to buy the workbook. I would recommend calling Temple Beth El for info; they're more likely to offer something to the non-Jew who's not interested in converting. I have not taken a formal Hebrew class through either synagogue here in town (I use my own workbooks and work at my own pace), but Yochanan has (http://www.xanga.com/yochanon), so you may want to contact him first. The 4-month class on Judaism (which I'm in) is around $80. Starts every January and goes through April.