The Passion of the Christ

[TWA Dude]

Maybe we're arguing about the wrong thing:
-------------------------------------------------------------


Couple Arrested After 'Passion' Debate

By Associated Press

March 18, 2004, 2:43 PM EST

STATESBORO, Ga. -- A couple who got into a dispute over a theological point after watching "The Passion of the Christ" were arrested after the argument turned violent.

The two left the movie theater debating whether God the Father in the Holy Trinity was human or symbolic, and the argument heated up when they got home, Melissa Davidson said.

"It was the dumbest thing we've ever done," she said.

Davidson, 34, and her husband, Sean Davidson, 33, were charged with simple battery on March 11 after the two called police on each other. They were released on $1,000 bail.

According to a police report, Melissa Davidson suffered injuries on her arm and face, while her husband had a scissors stab wound on his hand and his shirt was ripped off. He also allegedly punched a hole in a wall.

"Really, it was kind of a pitiful thing, to go to a movie like that and fight about it. I think they missed the point," said Gene McDaniel, chief sheriff's deputy.
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press

Link:

 

[Timebuilder]

The two left the movie theater debating whether God the Father in the Holy Trinity was human or symbolic,

God the Father....human?

Maybe the wire service didn't understand the argument the couple was having. I don't, that's for sure.

 

[avbug]

-- and no book being thrust in our faces proclaiming it's own "truth" can count as the word of G-d since we obviously have so many different versions.

That's not entirely true.

 

[surplus1]

Here is some info from a study >>>>>

Your defense of the KJV and your objections to other versions is noteworthy. While the AKJV is not my first choice, it would certainly be my second.

 

[surplus1]

To All

It depends on what you're trying to prove and who the judge is. Your "facts" differ from my "facts". Who's to judge? My guess is that neither of us will find out while we're still alive.

Although I am using TWA Dude's quoted statement, above, as an introduction to this post, I am not really replying to him personally but to all of you writing in this thread.

Super 80 and Tony C - I read your replies to me carefully and I have written an equally detailed response to each of your significant points and answers to questions you raised. I was also going to respond to several questions directed to me by other writers. When I went back and reread the above remarks by TWA Dude, I found them interesting enough to generate this post instead of the lengthy prepared response to Tony C (which I may yet decide to post).

I see our assorted disagreements throughout the thread as very much akin to what TWA said, i.e., "Your facts differ from my facts". Therein lies the problem.

Gentlemen, we are not dealing with "facts" we are dealing with "beliefs", questions of "Faith" that we inaccurately refer to as facts.

There are essentially three parties or variants to the overall discussion, Protestantism (in one form or another), Judaism and Catholicism. A secondary adjunct is the debate with the Christian variants vs. the views of Judaism.

Both of the Christian components, Protestantism and Catholicism, agree with respect to Jesus Christ and the validity of Scripture. They disagree as to the veracity of different versions of the Bible, with each considering the other heretical, at least in part. Judaism rejects all versions of the Bible and Christianity as a whole.

It was not my purpose in entering the discussion to attempt to prove or disprove anyone in particular, but rather to establish that "faith" cannot be proven or disproved and further, to reject the premise that differing versions of Scripture are not problematical. Were it not so, there would be no controversy or debate between the proclaimed Christian elements in the discussion.

None of us has been able to shake the "faith" of the other, and none of us has been able to objectively prove that he is "more correct" in his own beliefs than anyone else. TWA is therefore accurate when he says we will not find out while we're alive.

Enigma is correct when he states that it is not possible to "prove the Bible" by quoting from the Bible. Definitely not to a member of Judaism who does not believe, in the first instance, in the validity of any Bible.

The differences between Catholics and non-Catholics are virtually nonexistent by comparison with the differences between Christianity and Judaism. Nevertheless, although it appears that I may be the only Catholic in the discussion, the rest of you have been unable to convince me that your own interpretations of a Bible in which we both profess to believe, are any better than mine. An increasing quantity of posts is not likely to accomplish that.

The discussion is is in fact "circular" for it always brings us back to the very same place; all of this is a question of Faith and faith, by definition, is no more than belief in that which cannot be proven. Although I've tried to point that out several times, it has been ignored.

I entered the thread originally, on page 7, by writing something expressing admiration for TWA Dudes defense of his faith, and by objecting strongly to the statement that "Christianity contradicts Catholicism", later modified to "Catholicism contradicts Christianity."

One of the things that I originally tried to point out was that the plethora of differences between the Reformers themselves and the assorted Bible versions they follow literally, brings in to question their opposition to Catholicism as well as what they themselves actually believe. I of course knew that would be considered anathema. and it most certainly was. I was not countered by any logical argument, but rather by a series of justifications for the differences mentioned and further challenges about protestant fundamentalists vs. Catholics.

There has been no progress. What we are each doing is restating our respective beliefs and challenging further those that believe differently. A classic religious argument, except that we are lacking the views of Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhists, etc.

I continue to believe what I believed when I entered the discussion. Super 80, Tony C, Timebuilder, TWA Dude and the others all do likewise. No "facts" have been revealed (or imagined) that were previously unknown because we are not really debating contradicting "facts", we are debating contradicting beliefs. If the objective of any of us is to "convert" the others, it has not been reached. I predict that will remain unchanged.

Nevertheless I will continue to read and perhaps comment further. The "circle" may not be getting us anywhere but the different perspectives are very interesting, at least to me.

Thank you all for your comments.

 

[Super 80]

IMHO your proof is not provable. For that matter neither is mine.

This hypothetical Judge of yours is each and every one of us. Each of us gets to judge for ourselves. Probably the saddest part is that you don't even believe the evidence provided you. Miracles are discounted, stories questioned and prophecy ignored.

I am not here to say you are wrong. In fact, I'm here to say the Old Testament or Tanach, is right. I believe that God can do what He says He will do.

You say there is one God and Deuteronomy 6:4 seems to back you up:

DT 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

But this word One does not mean solitary, singular one. There are seventeen different words for one in the Hebrew if memory serves me correct and this one means an integrated One. It is the same word used for Adam and Eve to be one. It is a one of interlocking parts.

Now you think that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are false gods. That we are worshipping something not found in the Old Testament. But just as you cannot answer the servant passages or the one you have pierced in Zechariah, you have no answer for this passage in Isaiah:

ISA 11:1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.

ISA 11:2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him--
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of power,
the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD--

ISA 11:3 and he will delight in the fear of the LORD.

Is there a Holy Spirit? Isaiah seems to think so, at least that's what he says the Lord Almighty says. If we use your rationale, we'd really have to question if indeed Isaiah actually heard the Lord; were there any witnesses to this conversation other than Isaiah? Too bad his own people killed him: tradition has it that he was sawed in half.

And who is this shoot from the stump of Jesse? Who is this person the Spirit of the Lord will rest upon? Since you don't read the Gospel message I'll quote it for you. (Of course you can always ignore this if you don't want to read it.)

MT 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

Now you might balk at this, but there were eye witnesses to this event:

2PE 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

(Simon Peter says he's not doing what you accuse of him of doing by the way.)

Baptism was not new to the Jews, but a meaning was put on it by John the Baptist and that carried over into the Jewish washing when a person came to believe in the One God sent. Infant baptism is an entirely different matter and has no Biblical foundation. Baptism is the first act of obedience in Christ. But now we are also baptised in the Holy Spirit.

ISA 44:3b I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring,
and my blessing on your descendants.

Christians are not an entirely separate religious sect from Judaism. Gentile Christians are rather a new branch grafted onto a tree that is already flourishing -that of the Jewish Christians after Christ.

If an olive tree is not pruned back, if it is allowed to grow wild, it will cease to produce fruit. When such an olive tree is encountered, the only remedy is to cut it down and out of the stump, from the root, a new shoot will emerge. This new olive tree out of the old will when cared for will be fruitful. This requires pruning and grafting.

Israel is the olive tree. It had become unfruitful. And like Moses said in Deuteronomy if Israel obeyed God they would be blessed and if Israel did not obey God's commands, they would be cursed. And the historical narratives of the Old Testament show how the people failed their part of the covenant; thus the tree grew wild, and God cut it down. The shoot is Jesus, out of the root of Jesse, this is the new thing Isaiah speaks about. And the Spirit of God will rest upon Him.

So here in Isaiah 11 is the Triune God in the Old Testament. Here is a God of interlocking parts that is One. Here is the Elohim. Jesus' testimony is that He was there at the beginning. That is who God the Father was speaking to in having 'us make man in our image.'

And I'm sorry you can't see this. But it is there just as the passage in Isaiah 53, especially 7-9 describes not a nation (because Israel was not taken away without descendants, there will always be a remnant even into the Millennium) but a person.

So Christianity is nothing new, it is just the fulfillment of what your religion has been saying for all these years now.

 

[Super 80]

Oh, I think the Romans were equal-opportunity oppressors to all non-pagans. It was a simple power issue to them and a prescient one at that.

One small point, the early persecution was mostly Jew upon Jew. This is what I was speaking of in the immediate aftermath of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Believers in Jesus were imprisoned and killed.

Up until the time of Nero and the burning of Rome in A.D. 64, Roman persecution of Christians "was a mere afterthought, and did not result in any general proscription" (Cary and Scullard, p. 487). Even after that, up until A.D. 250, persecution was local and sporadic. However, after Emperor Decius there was systematic Roman persecution of Christians (Grant, p. 157).

The real threat to Rome was the exclusivity claim of Christians which nullified the easy peace of multiple pagan gods where every one could define his own deity to pay homage to in their own little household shrine. Furthermore, Christians would not pay tribute to Caesar as the supreme ruler, giving that title to God.

In many ways, this aspect of Christianity is evident today as a force that dispels the post-modernist view that maybe all the religions are right and there are many ways to God, or just the 'well maybe someday we'll see which one is right' approach (which means it may be too late for some). The world, in its humanist way without absolutes rebels against this "condemnation" and I would not be too surprised to find that someday in this country that Evangelism and then Christianity are branded as hate-speech.

 

[TWA Dude]

Surplus 1: Well said.

This hypothetical Judge of yours is each and every one of us. Each of us gets to judge for ourselves. Probably the saddest part is that you don't even believe the evidence provided you. Miracles are discounted, stories questioned and prophecy ignored.

Uh, sad for you but not for me. I'm quite happy with the Jewish view of things. My religion doesn't teach me to be sad about other beliefs.

I am not here to say you are wrong. In fact, I'm here to say the Old Testament or Tanach, is right. I believe that God can do what He says He will do.

Well, you might be taking a tactful approach but yes, you are here to say I'm wrong. Instead of trying to that you're wrong I'm just here to point out that there's no objective proof that you're right.

Now you think that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are false gods. That we are worshipping something not found in the Old Testament. But just as you cannot answer the servant passages or the one you have pierced in Zechariah, you have no answer for this passage in Isaiah:Is there a Holy Spirit?

There's a Hebrew word for the physical manifestation of G-d, Shekhina. The Kabbalistic explanation of Creation is that before Genesis the Shekhina was the entire physical universe. G-d had to contract the Shekhina in order to make room for our universe. As to the Christian Holy Spirit I have no idea. I'm not sure what you mean by "false gods". There's only one G-d.

If we use your rationale, we'd really have to question if indeed Isaiah actually heard the Lord; were there any witnesses to this conversation other than Isaiah?

I believe I've explaned my rationale vis a vis the Hebrew Bible: it's a book of history and laws that sometimes uses poetic license. I couldn't possibly try to prove any of it that isn't supported by science or archeology, so I won't.

And I'm sorry you can't see this. But it is there just as the passage in Isaiah 53, especially 7-9 describes not a nation (because Israel was not taken away without descendants, there will always be a remnant even into the Millennium) but a person.

Must I repeat myself? Two words: different interpretation.

So Christianity is nothing new, it is just the fulfillment of what your religion has been saying for all these years now.

Funny how you, a non-Jew, are so sure about the "fulfillment" of the Jewish religion. I'll take my chances on being "unfulfilled".

 

[TWA Dude]

One small point, the early persecution was mostly Jew upon Jew. This is what I was speaking of in the immediate aftermath of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Believers in Jesus were imprisoned and killed.

Is that not how most religions have dealt with whom they believe are heretics?

In many ways, this aspect of Christianity is evident today as a force that dispels the post-modernist view that maybe all the religions are right and there are many ways to God, or just the 'well maybe someday we'll see which one is right' approach (which means it may be too late for some).

I never said I believed all religions were right. If it makes you feel better, I don't, but I'm too polite to make an issue of it. I do believe that a person can be a good person and thus experience salvation even if s/he doesn't share my beliefs. Frankly I find it offensive when one religion insists that it's way is the only way. To put it bluntly I'm so sure that I don't need Jesus for my personal salvation that I'm willing to live and die as a Jew. If that saddens you then it truly is your problem.

 

[Super 80]

TWA Dude, This has gone round and round without getting anywhere, at least with you. To say that I am offended that you try to devalue Christ and the Bible with mere charges that either you can't back up or won't examine is an understatement. While I have attempted to put out reasons and facts, you don't even examine them. This discussion has not discussed the points but rather reflects a high school debate where each side just adamantly restates their argument and tries to better the other's score. This is what this has become. So in the same vein, this is a point by point rebuttal. Feel free to have the last word after this, as this conversation has gone as far as it can.

By example, it could be said that Judaism says to destroy people with other religious beliefs.

There's no objective proof for saying a nation can atone for its sins either.

We're going round and round on "one." You refuse to examine what echad means as being in the sense of united rather than singular. So you just mindlessly keep repeating 'it's one G-d,' without even knowing what you're actually saying from the Hebrew.

If there is no evidence for the history of the Old Testament, then it sets up the liberal argument of having to accept everything by faith. However, there are reasons in the archaeological evidence to believe in a literal reading of Biblical history. That conflicts with the cultural post-modern view and so it is rejected and the counter-argument is just to repeat louder that religion cannot be determined by fact, just faith (and one faith is as good as another it would seem since they have no firm basis to discern one from another).

Again it is not just a different interpretation; it is merely a declarative statement on your part. You have not examined the Rabbi's interpretation. There is no theological basis for saying the pronoun 'he' refers to a nation by Scripture and no way to apply a nation to the actions included in the Servant passages in Isaiah. This is where this stops being a discussion and the dialectic runs into a brick wall.

I do not find it funny that as a non-Jew I can find fulfillment of God's Word in Christ. This ridicules my religious beliefs without providing any specific constructive criticism.

On the second post:

Christianity teaches by example of the first century Church not to kill heretics. Also, unlike other religions, there is no proscription in the New Testament, unlike the Old Testament, to kill others that differ in belief from you, or even heretics. I take it from your overly broad insinuation that you are trying to blanket Christianity with the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church, Islam or even the actions of the Pharisees in the twenty years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The point is, which you conveniently forget, is that Jews persecuted Jews based upon their expressed beliefs in the Messiah. If you want to examine Roman persecution, or persecution by the Papal Church, then that's another matter. I have shown that Roman persecution was not systematically initiated until A.D. 250. If you want to examine history, we can, but I'm afraid it's not going to change your set views anymore than an examination of Old Testament Scripture has persuaded you.

I find your religious beliefs don't matter to you much. You, like many in our culture have this subjective test of being "good" as a measure of salvation. "Good" as being inoffensive has become the norm in "polite" circles. So put on a good exterior, smile a lot and don't express anything other than wishy-washy opinions that constitute a majority view and you too can be seen as "good" in the eyes of the world and still harbor a cesspool of sin within.

As long as the world view is that they are offended by Christianity (because Christians, at least non-liberal Christians who deal in absolutes -with an absolute Heaven and Hell) they can then equate Christianity with hate-speech, because it condemns some to Hell if they differ from their view. (But doesn't Judaism do the same thing with the wicked?)

I think it important to the Christians reading this, that they be prepared for persecution in this country, despite the First Amendment guarantees of 'freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof.' When Evangelism becomes more than a subject of scorn, when proselytizing becomes taboo, then a vehicle may be found to stamp out any expression of the basic Gospel message of the Bible as being intolerant. This would equate Christianity with bigotry in the extreme, and saying you're an Evangelical Christian would be no different that identifying yourself as a KKK member, or neo-Nazi, or a racist.