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.

 

[TWA Dude]

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.

I could say likewise.

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.

Actually it's been this way since the beginning. You just didn't recognize it. I'll concede that your explanations and Christian theology in general is well-thought out and logical past it's starting point. Sorry that it hasn't convinced me to change my beliefs.

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.

Lemme help you with this. In Judaism there's G-d. In Christianity there's G-d and the man/diety known as Jesus. You profess the theological need for Jesus whereas Judaism does not. The Hebrew Bible prophesizes the coming of the Messiah. Christianity says Jesus is the Messiah and he's G-d as well. My summary is no doubt incomplete but the debate goes round and round because it all starts with Jesus. I quoted a rabbical source to argue for me and that's all I'm able/willing to do. Sorry.

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).

I thought I was clear about this. Archeology does support some of the history in the Hebrew Bible. Does that necessarily make all of it true? If you believe then it does. I'm not arguing the Hebrew Bible here.

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.

What constructive criticism could I possibly deliver? I don't think Christians are going to Hell just because they believe Jesus is the Messiah. Nor do I think anybody is going to Hell just because they don't. I guess the biggest thing you've learned from this that you can't get a Jew to convert who doesn't wish to.

I find your religious beliefs don't matter to you much.

That's a nasty thing to say. You already know that I'm not an Orthodox Jew. In fact, I'm violating a Commandment right now by not observing the Sabbath (Oh yeah, the Ten Commandments have been replaced by a New Covenant so I guess I'm off the hook ... NOT). I'm not proud of this but there it is. You want an expert; debate with an Orthodox rabbi. I'm no substitute.

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?)

Interestingly Judaism doesn't speak much of a Hell. The way I understand it Judaism is far more concerned with our actions during life rather than the nebulous idea of an afterlife. In any case only G-d can condemn the wicked in the End. Enjoy your Day of Rest.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

.
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.

Already happening in Canada. Coming to America next. Sign of the times.

 

[Super 80]

Already happening in Canada.

We're seeing the day when the Western nations are rapidly becoming mixed nationally, like the toes of iron mixed with clay, but what exactly is happening in Canada?

I agree persecution will eventually come to this country as well. I also think it is important to the Christian that to have the likes of some the more virulent Christian-bashers on this board as a microcosm will not only become dominant, but the winning position -does not mean we are losing even though we cannot fight the tide that is turning. While I expect that Christians will be vilified, oppressed, imprisoned and killed -our war is to be won by God, and specifically by the Son on the Day of the Lord that is coming.

If we expect to be "kept from" that hour, that is not what the Bible says. Rather it is for God to "watch over" us in that hour so we remain "steadfast" in our faith in Jesus. Better to suffer the slings and arrows of dissent from the world and gain life than to have their accolades and go to death.

 

[Timebuilder]

Lemme help you with this. In Judaism there's G-d. In Christianity there's G-d and the man/diety known as Jesus.

Same God, bud.

The original reference from Genesis is "Elohim", a plural form, covering the three aspects of the ONE GOD. Jesus is God the Son, wholly God while being Man, too. Jesus is often callled Emanualle, or "God with us." Jesus has always been God the Son, and the aspect of God that speaks to Man throughout the Old Testament, and Jewish Scripture. This is why He was able to cause the temple elders to "marvel" at His understanding of the scriptures they read.

He wrote them.

but what exactly is happening in Canada?

Canada has passed new laws that prevent preaching from God's word on the basis of "hate speech", meaning that you cannot describe what the Bible says is "sinful" behavior, such as homosexuality, incest, etc.

It is important for everyone to understand that many of the same ivy league intellectuals (all liberal democrats) who are on the advisory boards of the leading "gay rights" organizations are the very same individuals that are on the boards of groups like the NAtional Man Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA. These groups have a great deal of political power. Eventually, it will be made 100% legal for minors to choose to engage in any sexual activity they desire, just as they now have a "right" to seek an abortion through a school without parental consent in many places.

This continuing trend is in a story in the news today: people are advancing the idea that students at a certain school have the ability to "choose" the gender that they want to identify with. Don't like being a "boy?" Now you can call yourself a "girl."

I think I want to vomit.

It's only the beginning, indeed.

 

[Chunk]

Back ON TOPIC!

I didn't wade through the pages and pages of arguing. I did, however, see that NAMBLA somehow got into the thread...strange.

I saw the movie tonight and was disappointed. It was well made and gripping, but it focused on the most visceral and frankly, least significant aspects of Christ's life. His ministry, baptism, atonement in the Garden, and resurrection are given only token mentions though they are more significant to us today. It was the suffering in the Garden that made the crucifiction more than just a martyrdom. The resurrection gives us hope of life eternal.

You can tell that Gibson is Catholic. He has a crucifix and suffering fetish. Many men in this world were tortured like Christ, no others sacrificed what he did. This movie did NOT address that atoning sacrifice.

My .02

Chunk

PS---back to the flame war

 

[Super 80]

Chunk,

Not only does this movie display all the Catholic "Stations of the Cross" (five of the twelve stations cannot be found in the Bible) which were developed in the early Roman Catholic Church from A.D. 381-384, but large portions of the Passion that cannot be found in the Gospel accounts are not just artistic liscense, but are graphic depictions of an early nineteenth century book entitled: The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich.

This book was penned by a Catholic nun at the Augustinian Order at Dulmen, Germany. Acquiring it from a closed nunnery, Mel Gibson said: "Amazing images, she supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of." This explains all the demonic scenes in which Satan, as a woman (I actually thought it was a man in the movie) is put into the action, the entire snake scene, the devilish children, the tie between Mary and Jesus (sopping the blood, feeling the stone floor of the Temple, interacting with Pilate's wife, kissing Jesus' feet) and even specific conversation between Mary (always termed 'Mother') and Jesus.

Finally, you have to understand that Mel Gibson as a Catholic is equating the Cross with the Eucharist. This is why certain words are changed, and even why Mel Gibson has Jesus speaking Latin to Pilate. Perhaps the most telling change is how Jesus died. Instead of speaking out with a loud voice, showing his strength when crucifixion is the slow snuffing out of life as the victim is unable to breath, this rendition of Christ is weak and defeated. And instead of saying; "It is finished," Mel Gibson has Jesus saying; "It is accomplished," which sets the stage for the continual Roman Catholic Eucharist where with each Mass, the Son pays the penalty again by the Priest.

There is a world of difference between the Biblical account, no matter which version you wish to use, and the Roman Catholic Church's Stations of the Cross.

 

[skydiverdriver]

I was wondering why mr Surplus didn't answer any of my questions? I thought they were fair and interesting, but you decided to leave the debate right after I asked.

Perhaps you will like this one better. Could you please show me an example of a Protestant (or Reformer if you prefer) version of the Bible that changes the meaning? Please show me the one you think is closest to the truth, and one that changes the text so I can see what you are talking about. Also, I think you mentioned the NWT which I believe is the New World Translation, which was written by Jehovah's Witnesses and does change the text to fit their beliefs. They are considered a cult, and don't count as far as this question is concerned.

Thanks.

 

[Satan]

I felt obligated to stop in and tell you that all the good deeds are not worth it, I'll see ya'll soon

 

[Super 80]

I think you mentioned the NWT which I believe is the New World Translation, which was written by Jehovah's Witnesses and does change the text to fit their beliefs. They are considered a cult, and don't count as far as this question is concerned.

Oh, okay, I was wondering what the NWT was. Yes, the Jehovah Witnesses have heretical teachings within their theology. But that school of thought goes all the way back to the Council at Nicea and Arianism and is nothing new. There have always been heretics that try to take away from the authority and Son-ship of Christ, either by diluting what He said and did by liberal interpretation which discounts the literal, or by diminishing Christ by putting others in His place as our Savior.

 

[surplus1]

I was wondering why mr Surplus didn't answer any of my questions? I thought they were fair and interesting, but you decided to leave the debate right after I asked.

I tried to respond with a generic post "to all" that appears about midway down on page 10 of the thread. It was ignored so I figured that my input was not appreciated by the factions.

Unless I choose to get involved in a peeing contest over whose belief is more correct than whose, there is really nothing to say. I can't or rather won't deal with folks who are non-Jews but set themselves up as experts on Judaism or non-Catholics who obviously know next to nothing about Catholicism, yet can tell everyone what we believe or don't believe. I'm not going to "convert" them and they're not going to "convert" me.

This is not an objective discussion about anything, its a battle between people with different Faiths. That's been going on for 2000 years since Christ, several thousand before His coming, and is not resolved. I certainly can't do it.

I'm a Catholic and I intend to remain a Catholic. No amount of criticism or "thumping" or quotations from the NIV, NASV, NWT, NKJV, RSV or the "Book of Mormon" (whatever that's supposed to be) are going to change my faith. In that respect, I am just like TWA Dude. You all can preach till the cows come home. Whenever you figure out what the differences are between your more than 1000 denominations and cults, then we can talk. Until then, we really don't have much to say to each other that won't result in a quarrel.

I do not want to fight with anyone over his/her faith. Go ahead and believe whatever you want to. I'm happy with what I believe and I hope you're all happy with whatever you believe. When judgement day comes the Lord will figure it out, just as He did the last time He came.

I'm reading because I find the quarrels entertaining. I especially liked the one about the atrocities of what someone called the Roman Church, of which there were undoubtedly many, such as the Crusades and the Inquisition. Errors of men conducted in the name of God.

What I find ironic is that the writer chose to ignore the atrocities associated with his own beliefs. As an example, thousands of these folks who fled Europe to escape the evil Catholics, promptly proceeded to massacre the heathen savages, burn each other at the stake to stamp out witchcraft and persecute each other in one form or another, again, all in the name of God, and with a vengance no less evil than the one they fled.

Religions and the people that run them have all done this at one time or another. The name calling merely changes from savage, to heathen, to heretic, to infidel, to crusader or whatever term justifies the havoc that men reak upon their fellow men in the name of God.

Call me whatever you choose, I don't care to become involved in the verbal equivalent of that.

Perhaps you will like this one better. Could you please show me an example of a Protestant (or Reformer if you prefer) version of the Bible that changes the meaning?

Coming from a Catholic I doubt you would find my examples relevant. I suggest instead that you consult the views of one group of Protestants vs. other groups of Protestants. Here is a link that will take you to a website by proponents of the AKJV. There they will show you some of the Biblical changes/differences that they consider inappropriate.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/

Perhaps that will help you to sort some of it out. There are many links on the site and it is quite informative, from their point of view. Again, this is not a Catholic web site. It is a Protestant web site that pits one of the Protestant versions of the Bible against other Protestant versions.

In answer to your question I do think that the AKJV is very accurate in what it covers. Close to 95% or more. Whenever Protestantism comes up with a single version of the Bible that they can agree among themselves is the correct version, then I will worry about how it compares to the Catholic version. Until then I have no idea which version I should compare to.

Basically, that's why I decided that it would be of no benefit to anyone for me to participate directly in the discussion. I would probably offend someone or wind up being offended myself. I wouldn't mind that if I thought it would make things better, but I doubt that it would.

Regards.

PS. I'm a Christian. I belong to the universal Church founded by Jesus and built on Peter whom He designated the rock that would become the foundation of His Church, and whose successor is a Polish man that lives in Italy in the city of Rome. With all its human failings, I respectfully submit that's way ahead of Jerry Falwell or the 700 Club.