The Passion of the Christ

[RightPedal]

I picture the three "guilty" parties, Satan, Adam, and Eve standing in a group, being upbraided by God for this shared event of misleading, allowing oneself to be mislead by disobedience of a direct order, and sharing the disobedience with another.

The man blamed the Woman,The Woman blamed the Serpent,
But the Serpent didn't have a leg to stand on...

 

[wms]

Probably read his bible for hours before he went just so he'd absolutely know that he knew more than the filmakers.

If the movie is based on the Bible, then wouldn't the Bible be the standard to measure the movie against? Just like anyone who would call themseves a christian, should compare their beliefs to the Bible.

 

[TonyC]

It was my understanding from a study of Genesis that God first addressed Satan in verse 14, and then turns to Adam to speak to him in verse 15.

I picture the three "guilty" parties, Satan, Adam, and Eve standing in a group, being upbraided by God for this shared event of misleading, allowing oneself to be mislead by disobedience of a direct order, and sharing the disobedience with another.

I admit, though, I am far from being an expert in these matters.

That would make no sense - - "Hey, Adam, I'm going to put enmity between you and your wife, and between your offspring and her offspring" - - wouldn't they be the same offspring?

Read the next few verses and it'll be clear to you that verses 14 AND 15 are spoken to Satan.

Genesis 3:
16 ¶ Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 ¶ And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

[TonyC]

I love the thought of Tony sitting there just trying to find all of the inaccuracies in the movie. Probably read his bible for hours before he went just so he'd absolutely know that he knew more than the filmakers. And then running out of there so he could sit down at his computer and tell us all about it. Thanks Tony. Insightful as always.

You're welcome, Herman. I wasn't, however, trying to entertain you. I don't consider it a criticism that I might read the Bible, so it that's what you intended, sorry.

As for reading before I went - - I regret that I did not. As for knowing more than the filmmakers, I think I might. As for running to the computer to tell you about it - - I wasn't the first to comment about the movie, I just added my 2 cents worth. And I didn't run down a list of inaccuracies. As I stated, it would not be constructive.

Did you have any other comments or questions?

 

[avbug]

But the Serpent didn't have a leg to stand on...

Ouch!

The curse was spoken to Satan.

You are correct there, of course.

The concept that Adam or Eve were guilty of anything is absurd, and is a misinterpretation perpetuated throughout modern Christianity. Adam and Eve were commanded to go forth, to be fruitful and multiply. They were also placed here on earth to learn and grow. To have growth, there must be oposition in all things.

To obtain this growth, this opposition, they were told they would need to make a choice, which they did. The old world concept of Eve dragging Adam down with an apple is ridiculous, and rendered with only a simplistic, superficial reading of scripture.

Adam was told of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the ramifications of it's use. He was making a personal sacrifice in order to honor the will of God...not commiting a sin. Those who believe Adam sinned, or who call Adams act "original sin" do not understand the scripture.

Eve was deceived by Satan, referred to as the serpent, to whom the scripture in question is addressed. By divine proclaimation, her partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil meant expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and a separation of the two. Adam, knowing that partaking of the tree also meant expulsion, elected to do so, fully understanding the consequences, in order to fulfill his requirement to be fruitful and multiply with Eve; his companion and helpmeet. Bottom line? He did it to be with her, and to fulfill the commandments of Jehovah.

Scripture tells us that Pilate TOOK Jesus and scourged him.

One can read the scripture too literally. The scripture does not stipulate that Pilate did the scourging, and in fact it is highly doubtful that Pilate had any part other than ordering the act.

One is given the impression that Pilate had some hatred or dislike for Christ. He did not. That Pilate ever gave audience to Jesus was only at the insistence of the Sanhedrin, the ruling Jewish council. The Sanhedrin had held an illegal trial using multiple false whitnesses, condemning Jesus on the basis of Blasphemy. However, the Sanhedrin, indeed no Jewish governing body, had authority to issue or carry out a sentence of death.

Pontius Pilate was the governor (more accurately Procurator of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea), and did have that authority. However, after having audience with Christ, determined to do nothing, but pass the matter out of his hands to Herod (son of Herod the Great). Pilate found no cause or issue with Jesus. He stated "I find in him no fault at all."

The Sanhedrin, knowing that charges of blasphemy would hold no weight with the Roman government, pushed the concept of sedition, suggesting that Jesus was mounting an insurrection and stirring up the people.

Jesus was sent to Herod Antipus, the same who had murdered (or more accurately, ordered the murder) of John the Baptist. He held the title of King, but was more accurately a Roman vassal. Herod interrogated Jesus, and there the Savior was mocked, and a robe placed about his shoulders. Herod found nothing worthy of condemnation, and after adorning Christ in the robe, sent him back to Pilate.

Pilate's statement to the Jews (particularly to the ruling Sanhedrin) was "ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people, and behold, I having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod, for I sent you to him and lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him."

Pilate's decision to "chastise" Jesus was a concession to the Jews, who sought the death of Jesus. Pilate's intention was to release Christ as part of a Passover tradition. The Sanhedrin ralied the people such that as a matter of choice, the people chose to release a prisoner convicted to death (Barrabas), and place Jesus in his stead. Pilate's wife even commented "Have nothing to do with that Just man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him."

Pilate gave the order, and at the same time called for a symbolic bowl of water and washed his hands, showing that he absolved himself of the decision rendered by the Jews in attendance. It was also Pilate that interrupted the scourging, and intervened, though in liklihood only after having been a silent observer. He then told the Jews again, "Behold I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him." This was the procurate Pilate's third proclaimation that Jesus was innocent, and his third public intervention to prevent the death of Jesus.

At that point, Pilate having apparently hoped that the sight of Jesus bleeding and suffering before the people would appease them, was left with little choice. The people cried out for his crucifixion. Pilate left the matter by saying, "Take ye him and crucify him. I find no fault with him."

Finally, before you rush to convict Pilate, in a final exchange between Pilate and Christ, the roles of judge and judged were reversed. Pilate took Christ aside in the judgement hall, and asked Christ who he was ("Whence art thou?"). He asked if Christ understood that Pilate had the power to crucify or release him. Christ proclaimed his own divinity by stating "Though couldsn't have no power at all over me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

In that statement, Christ made reference to the Sanhedrin ("he that delivered me unto thee"). While not absolving Pilate, he noted that Pilate was less culpable than others...this exchange taking place after the scourging.

Pilate's conviction of Christ's innocense, and his desire to save him from death, are above question. He was also an autocrat, bound by extortion over the threat of report of his own cruelties to those above him, most notably his Imperial master, Tiberias. He caved into the demands of the Jews out of fear of his own position, and for political purposes.

He did not, however participate in physically scourging Jesus, whom he tried to save.

 

[Timebuilder]

That would make no sense - - "Hey, Adam, I'm going to put enmity between you and your wife, and between your offspring and her offspring" - - wouldn't they be the same offspring?

There is nothing there that says they are "different" offspring. They are the same children. There will be enmity between their children, that's all. It makes perfect sense.

I can't subscribe to the idea that Adam and Eve did not sin. They did. It was the act of doing something that God had specified that they were not supposed to do.

A well worn guide to understanding scripture goes like this: when the plain sense makes sense, don't make any other sense.

It is the first sin, plain and simple.

I'm sticking with v 14 being spoken to Satan. He has no seed, so he cannot be the focus in v 15.

 

[Super 80]

Avbug,

I don't know if you're pulling everyone's leg, whether you're sincere in your statements, throwing mud in the water, or just out to put out a whole lot of inaccuracies, but if you're sincere, and that's my best guess, you need to sit down with someone who teaches theology, a pastor, or any dedicated Church member and go over some things with them as you've spelled them out here.

Some of the things you wrote are just plain wrong about the Bible, salvation and death over things that Jesus bought us; others are misconceptions. Now you don't have to get them all right to be saved, just the main issue in your heart. But if you want to learn, I'd be happy to help you tackle some of them like folks have done here with Genesis 3:15.

This is, by most interpretations and I would agree, the first utterance at the very inception of the relationship between God and Man that shows God had a plan to restore the righteous relationship between our fallen forefather and Him. And I would say, it does describe Jesus as the offspring of the woman. Read Revelation 12:1-6. This short parallel account encompasses some two thousand years by my interpretation.

 

[avbug]

You're probably right. My four years of seminary and ordination were probably wasted...but then who is to say your own interpretation is correct?

I will not debate theology, as it casts extreme disrespect on the subject. Bible bashing is out.

I'm pulling no one's leg, nor will I discuss it further on a site such as this. In person, perhaps, but not here. You're welcome to your own beliefs.

On the subject of adam vs. satan in the former verse reference, I misspoke, and stated as much in my next post (read it again). That changes nothing.

Let all believe what they will. As the Indigo Girls so well put it, there's more than one answer to this question, leading us in a crooked line. The less I search my soul for some definitive, the closer I am to fine...I love that song. It's true.

Incidentally, nothing I said was scripturally, or historically inaccurate. Something which apparently can't be said about the movie. Add your own interpretation, but it doesn't change the facts.

This forum is no place to preach.

 

[TonyC]

But the Serpent didn't have a leg to stand on...

Ouch!

The curse was spoken to Satan.

You are correct there, of course.

The concept that Adam or Eve were guilty of anything is absurd, and is a misinterpretation perpetuated throughout modern Christianity. Adam and Eve were commanded to go forth, to be fruitful and multiply. They were also placed here on earth to learn and grow. To have growth, there must be oposition in all things.

To obtain this growth, this opposition, they were told they would need to make a choice, which they did. The old world concept of Eve dragging Adam down with an apple is ridiculous, and rendered with only a simplistic, superficial reading of scripture.

Adam was told of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the ramifications of it's use. He was making a personal sacrifice in order to honor the will of God...not commiting a sin. Those who believe Adam sinned, or who call Adams act "original sin" do not understand the scripture.

Eve was deceived by Satan, referred to as the serpent, to whom the scripture in question is addressed. By divine proclaimation, her partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil meant expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and a separation of the two. Adam, knowing that partaking of the tree also meant expulsion, elected to do so, fully understanding the consequences, in order to fulfill his requirement to be fruitful and multiply with Eve; his companion and helpmeet. Bottom line? He did it to be with her, and to fulfill the commandments of Jehovah.

Scripture tells us that Pilate TOOK Jesus and scourged him.

One can read the scripture too literally. The scripture does not stipulate that Pilate did the scourging, and in fact it is highly doubtful that Pilate had any part other than ordering the act.

One is given the impression that Pilate had some hatred or dislike for Christ. He did not. That Pilate ever gave audience to Jesus was only at the insistence of the Sanhedrin, the ruling Jewish council. The Sanhedrin had held an illegal trial using multiple false whitnesses, condemning Jesus on the basis of Blasphemy. However, the Sanhedrin, indeed no Jewish governing body, had authority to issue or carry out a sentence of death.

Pontius Pilate was the governor (more accurately Procurator of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea), and did have that authority. However, after having audience with Christ, determined to do nothing, but pass the matter out of his hands to Herod (son of Herod the Great). Pilate found no cause or issue with Jesus. He stated "I find in him no fault at all."

The Sanhedrin, knowing that charges of blasphemy would hold no weight with the Roman government, pushed the concept of sedition, suggesting that Jesus was mounting an insurrection and stirring up the people.

Jesus was sent to Herod Antipus, the same who had murdered (or more accurately, ordered the murder) of John the Baptist. He held the title of King, but was more accurately a Roman vassal. Herod interrogated Jesus, and there the Savior was mocked, and a robe placed about his shoulders. Herod found nothing worthy of condemnation, and after adorning Christ in the robe, sent him back to Pilate.

Pilate's statement to the Jews (particularly to the ruling Sanhedrin) was "ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people, and behold, I having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod, for I sent you to him and lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him."

Pilate's decision to "chastise" Jesus was a concession to the Jews, who sought the death of Jesus. Pilate's intention was to release Christ as part of a Passover tradition. The Sanhedrin ralied the people such that as a matter of choice, the people chose to release a prisoner convicted to death (Barrabas), and place Jesus in his stead. Pilate's wife even commented "Have nothing to do with that Just man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him."

Pilate gave the order, and at the same time called for a symbolic bowl of water and washed his hands, showing that he absolved himself of the decision rendered by the Jews in attendance. It was also Pilate that interrupted the scourging, and intervened, though in liklihood only after having been a silent observer. He then told the Jews again, "Behold I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him." This was the procurate Pilate's third proclaimation that Jesus was innocent, and his third public intervention to prevent the death of Jesus.

At that point, Pilate having apparently hoped that the sight of Jesus bleeding and suffering before the people would appease them, was left with little choice. The people cried out for his crucifixion. Pilate left the matter by saying, "Take ye him and crucify him. I find no fault with him."

Finally, before you rush to convict Pilate, in a final exchange between Pilate and Christ, the roles of judge and judged were reversed. Pilate took Christ aside in the judgement hall, and asked Christ who he was ("Whence art thou?"). He asked if Christ understood that Pilate had the power to crucify or release him. Christ proclaimed his own divinity by stating "Though couldsn't have no power at all over me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

In that statement, Christ made reference to the Sanhedrin ("he that delivered me unto thee"). While not absolving Pilate, he noted that Pilate was less culpable than others...this exchange taking place after the scourging.

Pilate's conviction of Christ's innocense, and his desire to save him from death, are above question. He was also an autocrat, bound by extortion over the threat of report of his own cruelties to those above him, most notably his Imperial master, Tiberias. He caved into the demands of the Jews out of fear of his own position, and for political purposes.

He did not, however participate in physically scourging Jesus, whom he tried to save.

This forum is no place to preach.

I am so confused.

 

[Timebuilder]

No place to preach? Maybe not, in the conventional sense.

However, remember 1 Peter 3:15:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

Many people can disagree, but doctrine comes from many people rightly seeking the wisdom of God, and coming to one accord.

This film will not only stimulate debate, but will stimulate many to seek a personal relationship with the man/God who suffered to take away the sins of the world.

Most folks have had a sanitized and comfortable idea of a simple whipping, and a death that was overcome by the only "genuine article" among the many "gods" that Man has constructed. With this film, folks will have a much more clear picture of what was suffered on their behalf.

 

[redd]

Wow, Avbug, your dissertation about Pilot was factual, thoughtful and beautiful, you even used the actual words in the bible to make your point, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Oh, and it's ok to talk about Pilot, after all, this is a pilot's aviation forum.

 

[TonyC]

A well worn guide to understanding scripture goes like this: when the plain sense makes sense, don't make any other sense.

I'm sticking with v 14 being spoken to Satan. He has no seed, so he cannot be the focus in v 15.

I'm still confused. The plain sense is that God spoke to Satan in verses 14 and 15, to the woman in verse 16, and to Adam in verses 17 through 19. The party addressed is explicity identified at the beginning of each passage:

Genesis 3
14 ¶ And the LORD God said unto the serpent, ...
16 ¶ Unto the woman he said, ...
17 ¶ And unto Adam he said, ...

To read it any other way makes NO sense.

 

[avbug]

I am so confused.

Don't be. That was a historical recounting of facts...hardly preaching.

If it were preaching, I would have used nudity, and visual aids. And a monkey. If for no other reason, than tradition, and the fact that they're a lot of fun. And loud music. And little pointy paper hats. The ones with the shiny tassles hanging down from the top, like dunce caps but brighter, cheerier. The ones with the little elastic chinstraps that never last more than five minutes on a good day when the wind is at your back.

Maybe not so much nudity, but a man must dream. A very wise man once told me, always aim for the stars, and at least you'll reach the tree tops.

 

[TonyC]

You're probably right. My four years of seminary and ordination were probably wasted...

If that's where you learned that "[t]he concept that Adam or Eve were guilty of anything is absurd", then I must agree.

One can read the scripture too literally.

You misspelled liberally.

 

[Timebuilder]

Tony.

Let's say you are a ten year old, standing next to your friend, Fred. The two of you have just been found doing something you shouldn't, like eating the cake that was going to be dessert, after dinner.

Now, if I break my words to you up into verses, it might look like this:

14: Tony, that was wrong what you did

15: I'm not very happy about this.

Now, what is not specified here is that I turned to Fred and addressed him in verse 15. Did I have to mention him, even if I mention other names in other verses, like your parents or your sister?

Of course not.

That's what I surmise is happening here.

 

[avbug]

"literally" does not equate to "liberally". I meant what I said, the way I said it.

Scripture wasn't written in verse, nor was it written the way it is translated, nor was it often translated correctly...nor was it codified in any way but by the vote of man...interpretation all the way for a great many years, through many languages, reinterpretations, and versions. Continue to interpret it as you will...but remember that you may well be interpreting it wrong.

Simply because you were taught the scripture in a certain way...doesn't mean it's correct.

Don't lose sight of the fact that interpretations and renditions, and translations of the scripture were performed for one purpose; political domination. Parts were removed, hidden, changed, and those parts included that those seeking power felt most conducive to their position. Those same verses were used to start and fight wars, to condemn, to conquor, to inspire, to put down, and even to put to death. Don't be too sure you hold all the answers in your hot sweaty hand. God isn't dead...and he didn't finish speaking to man in the few years following the death and resurrection of Christ.

Stay wrapped up in the facination that the bible is the be-all and end-all of what there is to know and receive, and you dam up your own progress. It's good information, important to know, but there's more...so much more. Every day. Every mountain top a temple, every forest a hallowed hall, every silent bedroom in the dead of night a cathedral; church is in the heart and in the home, and the real scripture is written between each man and woman and the maker in whom they believe.

I'll stop there; I promised not to preach, and I won't. I don't. But I will say this; don't get too wrapped up in what you think you know. You may yet be surprised in this life or the next...there's more under the sun than the few words scratched between the covers of your bible, and there's more yet to come.

 

[Timebuilder]

Don't lose sight of the fact that interpretations and renditions, and translations of the scripture were performed for one purpose; political domination. Parts were removed, hidden, changed, and those parts included that those seeking power felt most conducive to their position. Those same verses were used to start and fight wars, to condemn, to conquor, to inspire, to put down, and even to put to death. Don't be too sure you hold all the answers in your hot sweaty hand. God isn't dead...and he didn't finish speaking to man in the few years following the death and resurrection of Christ.

Sounds like you are not giving creedence to 2 Timothy, 3:16-17.

He has given us a perfect scripture, that when translated using an open heart inclined to God, will give the needed meaning.

 

[TonyC]

Now, if I break my words to you up into verses, it might look like this:

14: Tony, that was wrong what you did

15: I'm not very happy about this.

Now, what is not specified here is that I turned to Fred and addressed him in verse 15. Did I have to mention him, even if I mention other names in other verses, like your parents or your sister?

Of course not.

That's what I surmise is happening here.

If you want to pretend that verses 16 through 19 do not exist, then your explanation is more plausible. However, there they are, plain as day.

God spoke to 3 parties, and addressed each party explicitly as He "turned" to them. It does not follow your rule of simplicity to contort this passage to have God address Satan by name, turn to address Adam without naming him, address the woman by name, and then turn again to address Adam a second time, this time naming him explicitly.

 

[TonyC]

"literally" does not equate to "liberally". I meant what I said, the way I said it.

OK, I admit it. I was trying to put words in your mouth. Since you didn't bite, I'll say it myself.

One can read the scripture too liberally.

 

[Ailerongirl]

Re: Re: Re: READ THE BOOK FIRST !

Absolutely not.

There was a small child, about 4 or 5, that was seated behind me. I think it was child abuse to have such a child sit through the movie. I know she could not have possibly read the subtitles or had the slightest clue what all the blood-slinging was about.

My 17-yr-old daughter asked me if she could see the movie. I told her no, too. As I stated above, more can be gained from an hour of reading the book. The movie has enough violence, in my opinion, to receive an NC-17 rating.

The movie is strictly for a mature, studied viewer.

After hearing the reviews, that's pretty much what I thought, but I keep hearing how people are taking their children.

On another note (I haven't yet seen the movie), I had a friend, a non-Christian, who saw the movie, and was very moved by it. On the way home she called another friend who asked her "Do you think the movie made you question your faith?", to which she said that it didn't make her question it, but rather strengthed her belief, as she had a better understanding of everything Jesus went through. She also said that it was pretty graphic.