AMM:

Was that "The Screwtape Letters" by any chance? I've heard of it, but never read it.

-ol' 2long

Wow, it's interesting to read what you all who've seen it thought.

<small>[ June 12, 2004, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: LoveMyEx ]</small>

I'd like to add my 2 cents to these questions going on between 2long (love you 2long!) and MM, but I don't have a lot of time, being at work, and so will have to come back later, probably.

First off, I haven't seen the film yet, but I will as soon as I can.

Also, I'm a Christian (Catholic), and I read the Bible every day. I was not raised a Christian - I'm an adult convert. My family are very esoteric when it comes to religion - ranging from pagan, to Buddhist to Hindu to Mormons to Catholics to Jewish - we all love each other!

MM puts it the way I saw it and why I came to believe in Jesus as God, and then HAD to give my allegiance to Him and try to start paying attention to what he was trying to teach me - that he was either crazy or a liar, or he was who he said he was - God.

This is unequivocal if you learn about the Jewish faith in the OT, and thereby come to understand many of Jesus's statements. For example, when asked why his disciples didn't fast, when John the Baptist's disciples, and the Pharisees did fast, he replied "Do the guests mourn when the Bridegroom is with them?" In the OT, the Jews referred to God as the Bridegroom. This is an example of how Jesus declared who he was to the Jewish people of his day - and consequently challenged and antagonized them. Another example is on Palm Sunday - he rode on a donkey into Jerusalem, thereby fulfilling the Scripture that the Messiah would enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey. Again, at the end of the Passover meal, where he took the bread and wine and ate and drank saying "This is my body, this is my blood, do this in remembrance of me" - as I understand it, the Jews lay a place at the Passover table for the Messiah, and the bread and wine at the place of the Messiah is never touched - it is left to symbolize that they still expect their Messiah. The Gospels say that at the END of the meal, Jesus picked up the bread and wine and ate and drank - it was the bread and wine at the Messiah's place at the table that Jesus used for this proclamation, thereby declaring to his followers unequivocally that he was the Messiah. And then there is always "I and the Father are one..." When you start reading the Gospels and putting them into historical context, and understanding the implications behind Jesus' words, you are faced with this stark choice - he was either mad, or he was who he said he was - there is simply no way around it. He was NOT just a great teacher, although if his words reach people who do not believe, that's great.

He DID say that he was the Messiah, and he DID say that he was God.

Love ya all!
LIR

Came across this link yesterday, I'm sure for good reason.

Who is Jesus?

For those who saw the movie, a girl up at work was wandering what the symbolism of Satan holding the man/baby was/is???

What's your take on that one?

Mel was inspired by the following book written by a nun, Anne Catherin Emmerich, "The Dolores Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" which he had stumbled across.

2long,

Why are you so "alarmed" about people putting so much into the movie? Yes, it is just a movie, and books are just books, whether the Bible or books written by C.S. Lewis.

If this movie, helps spark or rekindle a person's relationship w/oneself and God, what's wrong w/that? I don't see this as worshiping the movie or the producer of the movie -- just as you do not worship a priest or pastor or evangelist.

2long -- No. Not "Screwtape Letters." Can't stand that. It's banal. One of the essays, which are very good, on the whole. -- AMM

And coming soon to a Chritian bookstore near your Jesus souvernirs! Yep Mel Gibson company Icon Produtions has licensed a company that will be shipping Jesus souvenirs to Christian bookstores. This most popular item is the nail necklace a piece on nail on a leather strap.

Now you religious types is that not just a wee bit tacky or is anything okay as long as it has to do with god?

LadyinRed...very well put. He did say He was God, that He was the Son of God. He did say He was the Messiah. This is why He was crucified. He did not suffer and die for any other reason. The Jewish leaders knew exactly what He was about and what He claimed to be. And they didnt believe Him. Worse yet, they felt threatened by Him...and had Him crucified. So, since historical facts tell us he was crucified By Pilate because of the Jewish leadership, who wanted Him dead because He claimed to be the Messiah...then C.S. Lewis is correct...there are only three options.

2Long, you can believe that He didnt say He was the Messiah...that He didnt say He was God. But the problem with that belief is it not only goes against what is written in the Bible, but also against secular historical finds...and even common sense. Why did the Jewish leadership want Him dead? What did He say or proclaim that was so different, so scary to them, that they had no choice in their minds but to get rid of Him? Remember, historical finds and writings outside of the Bible testify to the fact that Jesus was put to death by Pilate because of the Jewish leadership. Why did Pilate do this? Especially after Caesar had already told him twice that if he didnt knock off all of the killings and crucifictions (Pilate was definitely a sadist), and if he didnt knock it off, Caesar was going o kill him. But he still did it. Why? What did Roman law have against this man? what could Pilate turn to if questioned by Caesar, to say why he had this man crucified?

Jesus claimed to be God, claimed to be King, claimed His authority came from higher than aesar, and thus was higher than Caesar. So not only was he committing blasphemy according to the Jewish leadership, but He was basically committing treason according to the Romans.

So, it still comes down to taking all the historical facts and deciding on what you believe. To say that Jesus didnt claim to be God ignores hostorical finds, and really goes beyond reason when looking at the motivations it would have taken to have the Jewish leadership hand over one of their own Jewish rabbis to the Romans (who they hated) to have crucified.

SoDisappointed, I am not sure what that baby seen was. I thought maybe it was Satan predicting that Jesus would succumb to the beatings and turn away from God, and thus basically become his son. I dont know. I cant seem to find it in the Biblical text, but maybe I am missing something. I would love if someone would chime in with some facts on this.

LoveMyEx...as a husband, a Christian husband, I have had to had some great introspection into myself over this whole ordeal with my wife. If you have read my threads, you will know that in January 2002, while I was in Bosnia, God spoke to me while I was in prayer and shortly thereafter. In that encounter with Him, as I worried about my marriage (I didnt know what was going on back here and the betrayal that was happening), God basically led me in the Bible to three commands. And as a husband, I found out very quickly what my mission would be. These commands to me were:

</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Forget about, or dont worry about your wife</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Get back to your first Love...Jesus</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Die for your wife!</font></li>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
I have spent the last two years learning how to do this. Many of the Harley principles are directly related to these principles.

I have posted many times on here on the roles God expects of husbands and wives. wives are called to submit, and to respect their husbands. Submission is such a nasty term in this society. But it basically means to fall under the spiritual headship of the husband. Notice I didnt say all men...just her husband. Women are not made to spiritually lead their families. They are not equipped, just as men are not equipped to become pregnant.

As my wife used to say in the better times, "I have a whole lot easier time with that word submission when I understand that your part, as my husband, is to die for me." What does that mean? To die for my wife? What does the Bible mean when it commands husbands to love their wives as God loves us? What does that mean?

I have spent two years doing the first two that God asked. I have tried to stop concentrating on my wife and what she has been doing or not doing. I have re-dedicated myself to my walk with Jesus, I dont think I have ever been closer to Him. But that third one...what is that? What is it to die for my wife? What is it to love her with the kind of love Jesus has for us?

A month ago, I read a book called "Wild at Heart," which gve me a very good clue into what men are made of, what they want, how they are built by God. Understanding that helped me come 75% of the way to understanding what God expects of husbands, and I encourage everyone to read it. In short, the book says this. That men are looking for three things in their lives: </font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">An adventure to go on</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">A battle to fight</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And a beauty to win over</font></li>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This sounds a lot like battle, a lot like being a warrior in no matter what we do in our lives. It sounds like men are built to die for their wives, if they can jsut find the way to do so. And this book was a great start to help me understand how I find that out.

Interestingly, the book briefly spells out what women are looking for: </font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">To share in an adventure with someone</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">To be fought for</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">To be somebody's beauty</font></li>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
But even with this book, I have still wandered around the last two years wondering what this dying for my wife thing is...loving her like Christ loves us. Well, first off, recently a pastor told me to ask myself...what is Christ's love like? It is different than ours. And I came up with words like all encompassing, sacrificial, forgiving, etc.

But, what I couldnt do was put a face on it. It still didnt mean a lot to me, outside of these abstract ideas. That us until, as you so well put it Love My Ex, I saw this movie.

Now, what does it mean to me when I read or hear that I must die for my wife, that I must love her like Christ loved me? And here is what I found out....

I spent that movie looking into the eyes of an actor who very well portrayed Christ. I spent most of the movie, looking into his eyes (I even missed a lot of subtexts because of it). And what I saw is what I believe is the essence of what God means when He commands us to love our wives like Christ loves us.

I saw in those eyes fear of the pain that was to come. I saw pain and anguish, as those around Him betrayed Him. I saw during the flashbacks, immense love for His mother, and for his friends. I saw during those flashbacks, a Man in love with life. I saw a Man who, when they came to arrest Him and Peter cut off one of the guards ears, I saw the look in the eyes of Jesus and what He must have portrayed to that man as he heled His ear. Gibson did a great job panning in and getting those expressions in the eyes of not only Jesus, but those He encountered.

Take the man that was forced to help Jesus carry the Cross. At one point, Jesus hs been picked up off the ground again and is barely able to stand. He is dying before He even gets to the crucifiction site. As He grabs the cross again, this man looks Jesus straight in the eyes and begins to tell Him "Just a little further...you're almost there." And Jesus looks back at Him with LOVE. In the midst of all that pain. In the midst of knowing this man a few minutes ago would have walked away and left Him to His death. Jesus still loved.

More? He gets to the point where they are nailing Him to the Cross and He is suffering gretly now. His head is movign back and forth frantically due to the pain. But in the midst of all of that, what does He do? He loves "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." And so much more.

But how does that apply to my marriage and dying for my wife, with lving her like Christ loved her? Remember in my previous post, I said that all I could think during the movie is "I did this, I am responsible for Him being there." And while that is true...and He KNEW that...He went anyway. He didnt say it isnt fair, He didnt whine to His Father that He didnt deserve this. He just went. He just loved.

What does that love look like that I have to give, and in reality, my wive NEEDS? It looks like all the things I said above. It looks happy and compassionate. It looks bloody and painful. It even sometimes looks unfair and to a point where I just cant take anymore. Or so I think.

So, applying this to my marriage, I see that first off, if I am the leader, then I am responible. With leadership comes responsibility. I MUST love my wife like Christ loves me, as is represented in what Gibson shows in the Passion.

I must forgive my wife. You know, I thought of what it is going to be like when I get to heaven. After what Jesus went thru. And I will feel so unworthy that I can just see myself falling at His feet. But I also see a Jesus that will pick me up, dust me off and say "Your sins and your iniquities, I will remember them no more." Jesus doesnt hold a grudge. There is only love. I put Him on that Cross, I caused Him to take every one of those flayings...and He still loves me. He went after me. He still accepts me as "friend." He still will give me everything I dont deserve and havent earned.

And I go back to my wife and think to myself "this is what it means to die for her." Jesus went thru far worse than anything my wife has dished out. And I did it to Him and He still loves me. Can I look Jesus i nthe eyes and say "But you dont understand the pain Jesus, of what she has done to me." "You dont understand the betrayal of me, of our family, of our future."

Wait a minute. He does understand. How can I do less.

In His arms.

Oh! Here it is! In an essay called "The Shocking Alternative". Too bad C.S. Lewis has been taken up by the rightwingers, because he's so very good:


“Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world, who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.

One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offenses against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s money…

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. … let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

The C.S. Lewis book is "Mere Christianity," for those that were asking.

In His arms.

LIR:

Nuh Uh! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

I was raised a Christian, folks. I do know something of what I speak. And yes, Jesus said he was the Messiah, the son of God, but he never said "I am God." Again, it means something different 2 me that he said "I and my father are one" than it does 2 you folk units. No offense meant.

MM:

"2Long, you can believe that He didnt say He was the Messiah..."

I never said that. I believe he did say that.

"that He didnt say He was God."

I did say this.

"But the problem with that belief is it not only goes against what is written in the Bible,"

A matter of interpretation.

"but also against secular historical finds..."

Really? VERY LITTLE historical evidence of Jesus exists, other than the Bible. All of it, unless I'm mistaken (it has been a long time since we had a subscription 2 Biblical Archaeology), is indirect. There is historical mention of Jesus in Roman history, but that's all I'm aware of.

"and even common sense."

In what way?

"Why did the Jewish leadership want Him dead?"

Why do people even 2day want 2 stifle new ideas? Change almost always sparks some fear and jealousy.

"What did He say or proclaim that was so different, so scary to them, that they had no choice in their minds but to get rid of Him?"

Well, I do know the answer 2 that. See my comment above. Same answer.

"Remember, historical finds and writings outside of the Bible testify to the fact that Jesus was put to death by Pilate because of the Jewish leadership."

This may be.

"claimed His authority came from higher than aesar, and thus was higher than Caesar."

Agreed.

"So not only was he committing blasphemy according to the Jewish leadership, but He was basically committing treason according to the Romans."

Absolutely, which answers your 2uestion 2 me.

best,
-ol' 2long

John 8:
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

John 10:
30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

I think the English translation must be less clear than the original language. The Jews obviously believed Jesus was claiming to be God.

smidge:

I think that may be. And maybe he was. I don't think he was claiming 2 be God so much as 2 being God's representative, as well as humanity's rep 2 God. When you think about it, the phrases you 2uote, if Jesus ac2ally said them in those words, sound like he's either evading the 2uestion "are you claiming 2 be God" by being deliberately vague, or he's trying 2 make an entirely different point. For example, why would he refer 2 God as his Father, if he himself is God?

Stuff for thought.

best,
-ol' 2long

I dont have much time and I will post later but a quick answer to 2Long's question...

God is represented as three distinct entities, all making up the whole which is God. Jesus claimed to be one with the Father. The Jews of the time knew EXACTLY what He meant! You see, too often we try to interpret things based on today, and not what they meant to the people at the time who said or wrote them.

Here is an example...

Many get caught up in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. They get caught up in the part where it says "Militia" and think that means "National Guard." But even a cursory glance at the definition of militia during that time, plus reading other writings, like the Federalist Papers, of those who wrote the Constitution, clearly states that "militia" means the (literally) the whole body of adult males. Now, we have expanded this in recent times to say that all rights afforded males also belong to females. But this isnt the point I am trying to make. We today use that word militia to say there is no right to bear arms, only for the national guard to have them. But that is not reading what the authors intended, or meant.

What Jesus said at the time was VERY clear to them as claiming He was God. Jews at the time knew that God was three parts (dont believe me? go back and find the exact word for God in Genesis in the original language...it is the plural word for God, meaning God in three parts!). Even when Jesus first started preaching, His own family and neighbors wanted to stone him!!! They knewwhat He was claiming. And taking our own interpretation and trying to put in on who He said He was, and who the people of the times knew He said He was, is really not proper.

Also, Jesus did many times not answer questions directly, but in parable. You see, for awhile, they kept trying to pen Him in...make Him say these things directly. But since they were setting a trap for Him, and His time had not yet come, He many times spoke in parables, or was vague in His answer. But at the end, when confronted and it was time for Him to reveal Himself...He did not shy away...and He did say that He is the Messiah, He is One with God (as in the same being)...and that He is God.

In His arms.

2Long,

Are you planning to go see "The Passion of Christ?"

2Long: God's name in the old testament, YHWH, which is sometimes translated "Jehovah", is literally translated "I AM WHO I AM". It was written in the Hebrew scriptures in caps or otherwise set apart somehow (sorry, I don't remember the exact details and do not know Hebrew) so that when someone was reading aloud from the scriptures, they would notice the different script, and not actually say the word, for God's name was too holy to even be spoken. When Jesus said "I AM" in the passages above, he was not only speaking the word aloud, he was using the name of God for himself. The Jews of the day understood this as blasphemy, which is why they wanted to stone him. If Jesus had not been God, the charge of blasphemy would have been correct. In John 18, when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, they asked which one was Jesus, and he replied by saying "I AM HE". At the sound of those words, they all moved back and fell to the ground...because of the power of those words. It really doesn't translate into english.

<small>[ February 28, 2004, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: johnh39 ]</small>

I saw the movie this afternoon.

I recommend everyone read Isaiah 53 before seeing the movie. Made me feel sad for the Jews who missed their Messiah. The unfolding of the OT prophesy is powerful.

One thing that struck me was the flashback of Jesus' entry into the city on Palm Sunday contrasted to the people mocking him on his way to Golgotha. It made me realize how, in general, many people give little thought to what they really believe and will just go along with popular opinion no matter what that may be.
Here, they were hailing Jesus as their King and 5 days later screaming to have him crucified.

As far as all the media criticism goes, the violence is none worse than anything else you see on the big screen these days. All the hubbub about the violence from the movie critics is nothing but sheer hypocrisy. You never hear them carrying on about the violence in other movies they way they go on and on and on about this. It's utterly ridiculous. My 11 year old wants to see the film. Now after seeing it, I will allow her to see it.

Antisemitism, I say, ridiculous! The movie didn't make me hate the Jews of that time, made me pity them. I don't think the masses will fabricate an association between the Jews of 2000 years ago with the Jews in society today. It's all just a bunch of hogwash. The secular media just can't stomach the real message of the film. Just like Jesus said "if they persecute Me, they will persecute you as well." True to this very day! Christianity takes endless hits from the secular media and society at every turn in our expression of our faith and beliefs and in our attempts to evangelize the saving news of the gospel.

I wonder what mud flinging would result if other "religions" produce cinema laying out the accounts of their sacred writings? I'm pretty secure venturing to say that I don't think it would conjure up a pittance of the criticism this movie has. I say Hurray! for the critics, because of them, many more people will be curious enough to see this incredible film.

I hope Mel Gibson starts from Genesis and will produce more films looking at the Bible from a bible believing Christian perspective. God bless him for having the huevos to put his head on the chopping block like he did.

It's a film not to be missed.

Oh mthrrhbard! You write:

"I wonder what mud flinging would result if other religions produce cinema laying out the accounts of their sacred writings? I'm pretty secure venturing to say that I don't think it would conjure up a pittance of the criticism this movie has."

Check out Islam!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by johnh39:
<strong> God's name in the old testament, YHWH, which is sometimes translated "Jehovah", is literally translated "I AM WHO I AM". It was written in the Hebrew scriptures in caps or otherwise set apart somehow (sorry, I don't remember the exact details and do not know Hebrew) so that when someone was reading aloud from the scriptures, they would notice the different script, and not actually say the word, for God's name was too holy to even be spoken... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Your resident Hebrew scholar here, usually hanging out in the Prayer Requests forum. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

In the Old Testament God has many names:
Adonai=Lord
Elohenu=our God
Melech=King
Echad=One

YHWH is the Hebrew designation for the name in English translated Jehovah. That is because Jehovah is more of a name, whereas the other names are more like titles. Now, in Hebrew, there are no vowels, so the letters for Jehovah without vowels are: J H V H. J is more of an English letter, and the equivalent in Hebrew is a yod which looks like an appostrophe--thus Y. W is a version of the old letter V; thus, the more English JHVH is represented by YHWH in Hebrew.

However, in the original Hebrew, torahs contain the name Jehovah or the YHWH designation for that name on occasions that are using God's casual name, not His pwerful personal name. What is in the actual torah as a designation of God's name are two yods together, looking something like this: " When a person is reading the torah and sees the designation " the reader says Adonai which means Lord. But this is not what it written. What is written is the " which a way of saying, "This is where the name of God goes." As we are reading along, what we think is Adonai/Lord, but right alongside that is God's name which is too holy to even pronounce.

Hope that helps! Any Hebrew inquiries can be directed to FaithfulWife/CJ over at the Prayer Request forum, or by dialing 1-800.... heehee.


CJ

<small>[ February 29, 2004, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: FaithfulWife ]</small>