- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Was Passion of the Christ a controversial film?
Posted on 12/25/17 at 2:07 am to RollTide1987
Posted on 12/25/17 at 2:07 am to RollTide1987
quote:
I don’t subscribe to this document because there is no historical or archeological proof that such a document ever existed. If one did exist, you’d have to figure that one of the early Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus or Eusebius, would have made mention of it.
Yeah because we all know there is no way texts or entire books couldn't possibly be left out of the Bible on purpose by the church.
1
Posted on 12/25/17 at 2:15 am to AshLSU
quote:
Yeah because we all know there is no way texts or entire books couldn't possibly be left out of the Bible on purpose by the church.
It's one thing to get left out of the Bible, it's quite another to disappear from the pages of history entirely. Virtually all of the writings that failed to make the Bible cut, whether controversial or no, are still in existence today. And the ones that aren't, we know about them because the early Church Fathers quoted liberally from them in their contemporary writings. This so-called "Q" document referred to earlier has absolutely no basis in the historical record. It's just a hypothetical document that many scholars sell off as fact to explain away their conclusions that Mark was written before Matthew.
Never mind the fact that the earliest Church Fathers have all insisted that 1) Matthew was written first and 2) Matthew was first written in Jesus's native language of Aramaic.
This post was edited on 12/25/17 at 2:17 am
Posted on 12/25/17 at 7:07 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Never mind the fact that the earliest Church Fathers have all insisted that 1) Matthew was written first and 2) Matthew was first written in Jesus's native language of Aramaic.
The Book of Matthew was not written in Aramaic, it was written in Hebrew.
You do understand they spoke Hebrew at the time of Christ?
They also spoke Greek, Latin, an Aramaic, the common language in Judea was Hebrew. That is why when Jesus is nailed to the cross it is written in three languages Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.
Notice not in Aramaic? Aramaic is a regional language of the area. Hebrew is the language of Judea, Greek is the trading language of the Mediterranean area, Latin is the government language.
Why was the New Testament written mostly in Aramaic? All of the surrounding area of Judea spoke Aramaic.
Archaeology is a wonderful tool and has been used as a two edge sword both for the Bible and against. By the 1840 it was common to start seeing attacks against the Biblical accounts of history.
They said there was no Hittite Empire, no Pontius Pilate, Hebrew was unknown at the time of Christ, and much more.
So far all the claims of the 1800's have been proven false time and time again, and this is with Biblical archaeologist fighting an up hill battle time and time again.
The a stone carving of Pilate is found in 1961:
DIS AUGUSTI]S TIBERIÉUM
[...PO]NTIUS PILATUS
[...PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E
[...FECIT D]E[DICAVIT]
To the Divine Augusti [this] Tiberieum
...Pontius Pilate
...prefect of Judea
...has dedicated [this]
Then the Hebrew stone is found:
A legion stone craving was found in Judea from around 40AD, written in Latin and Hebrew (notice not Aramaic).
It is now excepted that Hebrew was the language of Judea at the time of Christ, due to all the work at the digs all around Israel.
Do you not think Christ could have spoken all the languages?
This post was edited on 12/25/17 at 7:08 am
Posted on 12/25/17 at 12:18 pm to Methuselah
I saw it in theaters with a group of Assembly of God church goers who came on a bus. Had no idea that was going to happen. We arrived and there were a dozen busses in the parking lot. Nothing I have ever seen before going to a movie.
I loved Mel Gibson films and was interested in his interpretation, but it was pure torture porn to evoke the severe emotional reaction that was in that theater. People weaping all around me while the Kews are taking divots out of JC’s flesh.
When his anti-semtic rant came out it was unsurprising to me after watching how he portrayed the Jews in that movie. Spare me the “WELL JEWS DID DO IT” responses. That movie was fricking chum to Christians and made him a bajillionaire.
I loved Mel Gibson films and was interested in his interpretation, but it was pure torture porn to evoke the severe emotional reaction that was in that theater. People weaping all around me while the Kews are taking divots out of JC’s flesh.
When his anti-semtic rant came out it was unsurprising to me after watching how he portrayed the Jews in that movie. Spare me the “WELL JEWS DID DO IT” responses. That movie was fricking chum to Christians and made him a bajillionaire.
Posted on 12/25/17 at 12:18 pm to Methuselah
I saw it in theaters with a group of Assembly of God church goers who came on a bus. Had no idea that was going to happen. We arrived and there were a dozen busses in the parking lot. Nothing I have ever seen before going to a movie.
I loved Mel Gibson films and was interested in his interpretation, but it was pure torture porn to evoke the severe emotional reaction that was in that theater. People weaping all around me while the Jews are taking divots out of JC’s flesh.
When his anti-semtic rant came out it was unsurprising to me after watching how he portrayed the Jews in that movie. Spare me the “WELL JEWS DID DO IT” responses. That movie was fricking chum to Christians and made him a bajillionaire.
I loved Mel Gibson films and was interested in his interpretation, but it was pure torture porn to evoke the severe emotional reaction that was in that theater. People weaping all around me while the Jews are taking divots out of JC’s flesh.
When his anti-semtic rant came out it was unsurprising to me after watching how he portrayed the Jews in that movie. Spare me the “WELL JEWS DID DO IT” responses. That movie was fricking chum to Christians and made him a bajillionaire.
Posted on 12/25/17 at 12:29 pm to tigger1
quote:
The Book of Matthew was not written in Aramaic, it was written in Hebrew.
Not according to Papias, the bishop of Hieropolis, who wrote between AD 95 and AD 120:
"Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).
So this is an early Church Father, writing less than 100 years after the ministry of Jesus, saying that Matthew was first written in Aramaic.
This post was edited on 12/25/17 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 12/25/17 at 1:00 pm to RollTide1987
The Papias wrote of the book of Matthew:
Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.
That is the only thing he wrote on the book of Matthew.
Eusebuis is a 4th century Bishop, it comes from his work entitled: History of the Church: wrote this of Papias and Matthew:
Book III
16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.
Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.
That is the only thing he wrote on the book of Matthew.
Eusebuis is a 4th century Bishop, it comes from his work entitled: History of the Church: wrote this of Papias and Matthew:
Book III
16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.
This post was edited on 12/25/17 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 12/25/17 at 1:08 pm to Parmen
quote:
Well, who else’s fault is it? The Romans only got involved because the Jews wanted them to crucify Our Lord.
Umm, God's? (if you're a believer). God's whole plan was to send his only son to earth so that he could die for our sins.
But sure, go ahead and blame the Jews.
Posted on 12/25/17 at 1:16 pm to tigger1
Most scholars who subscribe to the theory that Matthew was written in "the language of the Hebrews" first believe Matthew would have written in Aramaic, not Hebrew. The problem is the Greek word Hebraidi was used for both languages. That is where your confusion is coming from.
They believe this because Matthew has a scattering of Aramaic expressions, such as Jesus's last words on the cross. You find other such Aramaic expressions in Mark.
They believe this because Matthew has a scattering of Aramaic expressions, such as Jesus's last words on the cross. You find other such Aramaic expressions in Mark.
This post was edited on 12/25/17 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 12/25/17 at 2:38 pm to RollTide1987
I enjoyed the movie. Made me appreciate more what Jesus done for me/us. Mel Gibson said God gave him the ideas for the movie and he tried to make it as close as he could to the real thing, including it not being in English. Jesus'death was very severe. It wasn't just nails that he went through.
I remember people having their lives changed because of the movie. Even feeling so guilty that they turned themselves in for crimes they committed in the past. Most of the crowds who went and seen the movie, didn't leave their seats after it was over. They remained seated thru the credits. How many movies does that happen?
I remember people having their lives changed because of the movie. Even feeling so guilty that they turned themselves in for crimes they committed in the past. Most of the crowds who went and seen the movie, didn't leave their seats after it was over. They remained seated thru the credits. How many movies does that happen?
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News