My reply to beanieboy

[Agape4Robin]

So, in other words, "Jesus died for me" meant little to you as a Christian, until you saw that it was painful.
You hae said as much.

brtw - Martin Luther King was warned that he was risking his life, and yes, it was taken from him just as it was taken from Christ.
He sacrifided his life for the civil rights of others, as a soldier fights for freedom.
Is it the same as Christ? Of course not. Nor did I say that.
But dying for a cause doesn't make it less heroic just because the death was fast and quick.

Your disregard for King and Parks says a lot of what is in your heart, and it sure isn't the love of Jesus.
King was Christian, and followed the example of Christ.

Let me repeat what I said, since you obviously ignored it, except what you wanted to hear.

Wrong, beanieboy. That is not what is being said.
Like I said before, I had read the scriptures that pertained to Christ's crucifixion, but they were words on a page. After I saw the movie and began a study to determine if what I saw was truth or sensationalism, I began to realize that it was true. It was a big deal and I think many Christians (if they would be honest) took the suffering and brutality of Christ's death, for granted. The written words just didn't impact them (me) like it probably should have. But His death was designed by God from the beginning and followed after the Law as it applied to the Levites. They were the priests who carried out the sacrificial duties according to Levitical Law.
Mel Gibson took those words and made them move and breathe and we could no longer look away and minimize what Christ went through.......and He went through it willingly. No one "killed" Jesus. He laid down His life willingly.
BTW...........Martin Luther King Jr. didn't willingly give up his life for civil rights, his life was taken from him. He was murdered! Not the same as Christ. Not even close. Risking your life is not the same as giving up your life.
Rosa Parks? Come on, now............you misuse the meaning of hero.

 

[SOTK]

That may be true.
But there is a lot of snide arrogant hatred among your brethren as well.

And for that, you either don't see it, or aren't brave enough to speak out about it.
Robin's interactions are usually snide.
Do you say anything?
Do you say anything when she provokes it?

no. and that makes you a hypocrite.

I have spoken up several times on this board. Some of it I have done publically and some privately. If a brother or sister is seriously out of line, I have rebuked. Ask wickwoman.

Robin may get "snide" from time to time, but maybe, just maybe it has to do with the hatred and contempt of Christians and our God which shines through in just about every one of your posts.

You can sometimes ask good questions, beanieboy, but lately you have been a broken record, and sorry, but your attitude stinks. Like it or not, you are debating on a Forum which is ran and operated by Christians. The majority of the posters are Christians. If you want to have intelligent debate and discussion, you need to be respectful and stop what you are doing. I mean, come on! Debating whether or not Jesus Christ suffered in the crucifixion?!!!! How arrogant can you be?

 

[beanieboy]

Now you are cut and pasting your own stuff?

Look - Jesus was murdered. He didn't take his own life.
He knew that one day, he would be sacrificed for the sins of others.

King knew that he was a target for being killed. If you have done any research, you would know that people were angry about giving black people equal rights, and King's life was threatened constantly.

He sacrificed his life because he could have backed down.
But he didn't, knowing that he would probably be killed.

And Rosa Parks?

I would suggest doing some history, and having respect for such people

I never said that they WERE Jesus, but they were following Jesus in their sacrifice and risking their own safety, risking jail time, and sometimes risking their lives,and they knew it.

If you would get off your high horse, you would realize that what I am saying makes sense.

 

[beanieboy]

I have spoken up several times on this board. Some of it I have done publically and some privately. If a brother or sister is seriously out of line, I have rebuked. Ask wickwoman.

Robin may get "snide" from time to time, but maybe, just maybe it has to do with the hatred and contempt of Christians and our God which shines through in just about every one of your posts.

You can sometimes ask good questions, beanieboy, but lately you have been a broken record, and sorry, but your attitude stinks. Like it or not, you are debating on a Forum which is ran and operated by Christians. The majority of the posters are Christians. If you want to have intelligent debate and discussion, you need to be respectful and stop what you are doing. I mean, come on! Debating whether or not Jesus Christ suffered in the crucifixion?!!!! How arrogant can you be?

I have been a bit harsh.

But it's like kicking a dog day after day, then being surprised when the dog lunges at you to bite you. Should an attacking, angry, bitter Christian like Robin be surprised that when she is snide and demeaning, someone will return the faor?

That doesn't validate it. But if one can't take it, they shouldn't dish it out.
And it's the antithesis of what the bible says.
It's the antithesis of being Buddhist as well, but a Buddhist doesn't shrug it off because they are no longer held to it. They are held to it. Christians simply say, "ah well. I'm under grace, not the law, so I can behave like I want."
There is a difference of opinion among christians, but expect to reap what you sow.

Now - for you:
Am I debating whether or not Jesus Christ suffered on the cross?
No.
I never said anything of the kind!

I said that the point of Jesus on the cross was sacrifice and resurrection, not how much pain he could handle and endure, and suggested that the Passion focuses on the pain. I said that people commented, "Wow, Jesus went through so much for me," because just reading it in the bible that he died, as Robin points out, didn't mean all that much. But that it HURT means that he really cared.

And that is what I am debating.
Please read my post before responding.
I am simply saying that the pain wasn't an issue of the death/resurrection, and if it was, then Jesus could have suffered much more, as other people in history have surpassed the pain of Christ on the cross.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Now you are cut and pasting your own stuff?

Look - Jesus was murdered. He didn't take his own life.
He knew that one day, he would be sacrificed for the sins of others.

King knew that he was a target for being killed. If you have done any research, you would know that people were angry about giving black people equal rights, and King's life was threatened constantly.

He sacrificed his life because he could have backed down.
But he didn't, knowing that he would probably be killed.

And Rosa Parks?

I would suggest doing some history, and having respect for such people

I never said that they WERE Jesus, but they were following Jesus in their sacrifice and risking their own safety, risking jail time, and sometimes risking their lives,and they knew it.

If you would get off your high horse, you would realize that what I am saying makes sense.

Jhn 10:17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Jhn 10:18No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


As you can see, Christ was not murdered. He sacrificed His life. MLK was murdered. He did not know he was going to die that day when James Earl Ray pointed a gun and killed him. His cause was a noble one, but he did not sacrifice his very life for it. He lost his life for his cause, but not in the same manner that Christ gave His life. Can't you see the difference?

Rosa Parks.......not a hero.
One who is idolized, perhaps, but not a hero.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Jhn 10:17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Jhn 10:18No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


As you can see, Christ was not murdered. He sacrificed His life. MLK was murdered. He did not know he was going to die that day when James Earl Ray pointed a gun and killed him. His cause was a noble one, but he did not sacrifice his very life for it. He lost his life for his cause, but not in the same manner that Christ gave His life. Can't you see the difference?

Rosa Parks.......not a hero.
One who is idolized, perhaps, but not a hero.

:sozo: HELLO! Hello! hello!
hello...........

 

[SOTK]

I have been a bit harsh.

But it's like kicking a dog day after day, then being surprised when the dog lunges at you to bite you. Should an attacking, angry, bitter Christian like Robin be surprised that when she is snide and demeaning, someone will return the faor?

That doesn't validate it. But if one can't take it, they shouldn't dish it out.
And it's the antithesis of what the bible says.
It's the antithesis of being Buddhist as well, but a Buddhist doesn't shrug it off because they are no longer held to it. They are held to it. Christians simply say, "ah well. I'm under grace, not the law, so I can behave like I want."
There is a difference of opinion among christians, but expect to reap what you sow.

Now - for you:
Am I debating whether or not Jesus Christ suffered on the cross?
No.
I never said anything of the kind!

I said that the point of Jesus on the cross was sacrifice and resurrection, not how much pain he could handle and endure, and suggested that the Passion focuses on the pain. I said that people commented, "Wow, Jesus went through so much for me," because just reading it in the bible that he died, as Robin points out, didn't mean all that much. But that it HURT means that he really cared.

And that is what I am debating.
Please read my post before responding.
I am simply saying that the pain wasn't an issue of the death/resurrection, and if it was, then Jesus could have suffered much more, as other people in history have surpassed the pain of Christ on the cross.

I seem to remember Robin going out of her way in a particular thread to show that calling homosexuals a "faggot" and other such terms was out of line. I think it is you who has been the person on the "attack" lately, Beanieboy.

If you aren't debating whether or not Jesus Christ suffered on the cross, why are you going out of your way to debunk it? That's what it looks like to me, and yes, I have read your posts. My arrogance comment to you stemmed from the fact that you have made comments questioning the degree of Christ's suffering. That's arrogant. The fact of the matter is that you have no idea how painful it was nor exactly what the nature of the abuse occured was. You weren't there! Given the small amount of historical investigating I've done regarding the time of the day and practices of the Roman Empire, it is highly likely that Christ suffered an extraordinary amount!

Yes, The Passion of Christ is graphic, however, effective. It made an extraordinary amount of money and many were convicted because of it. Something tells me that the message of the movie shined through!

 

[Agape4Robin]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SOTK again.:sigh:

 

[Granite]

Your witticism is underwhelming.......

:rotfl:

Ahhhhhh. The Christian, that proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked.

 

[beanieboy]

If you aren't debating whether or not Jesus Christ suffered on the cross, why are you going out of your way to debunk it? That's what it looks like to me, and yes, I have read your posts. My arrogance comment to you stemmed from the fact that you have made comments questioning the degree of Christ's suffering. That's arrogant. The fact of the matter is that you have no idea how painful it was nor exactly what the nature of the abuse occured was. You weren't there! Given the small amount of historical investigating I've done regarding the time of the day and practices of the Roman Empire, it is highly likely that Christ suffered an extraordinary amount!

Yes, The Passion of Christ is graphic, however, effective. It made an extraordinary amount of money and many were convicted because of it. Something tells me that the message of the movie shined through!

Here's one reviewers take:
If Jesus actually received the amount of punishment dished out in this film, he would have been dead three times over before arriving at Calvary.
With “The Passion of the Christ” Mel Gibson doesn’t redefine the religious film so much as he redefines overkill.

Any account of his passion should move us to tears and to question our worthiness. As a zealot for violence, Gibson instead pounds us into numbness.

Another:
By the time the movie makes it to the crucifixion, the cross _ not to mention Jesus' mission - seems like an afterthought.

What doesn't quite get through is Christ's message of forgiveness and love. You occasionally read it in the subtitles, but you don't really feel it in the movie. It just doesn't engage Gibson. He doesn't even show much interest in the Resurrection (given all of two minutes here), and why should he when his camera can zero in on a crow devouring the eyes of the mocking thief crucified next to Jesus? And that pretty much sums up "The Passion": God (and Mel) revealing himself through eye-gouging.

 

[Delmar]

I said that the passover lamb isn't killed with suffering.
You quote a verse that talks of the coming of Christ.
Unless you believe that by the stripes of a lamb, you are healed.

This is the sentence I was responding to.

No where in the bible does it say that Jesus pain was necessary. It says that his death was necessary.
.

When Isaiah 53 says "by his stripes we are healed I take it to mean that his suffering was a part of what heals us.

 

[SOTK]

Here's one reviewers take:
If Jesus actually received the amount of punishment dished out in this film, he would have been dead three times over before arriving at Calvary.
With “The Passion of the Christ” Mel Gibson doesn’t redefine the religious film so much as he redefines overkill.

Any account of his passion should move us to tears and to question our worthiness. As a zealot for violence, Gibson instead pounds us into numbness.

Another:
By the time the movie makes it to the crucifixion, the cross _ not to mention Jesus' mission - seems like an afterthought.

What doesn't quite get through is Christ's message of forgiveness and love. You occasionally read it in the subtitles, but you don't really feel it in the movie. It just doesn't engage Gibson. He doesn't even show much interest in the Resurrection (given all of two minutes here), and why should he when his camera can zero in on a crow devouring the eyes of the mocking thief crucified next to Jesus? And that pretty much sums up "The Passion": God (and Mel) revealing himself through eye-gouging.

I could care less what a reviewer says. I rarely pay attention to reviews. This movie was a worldwide success and nobody can deny that.

 

[beanieboy]

I could care less what a reviewer says. I rarely pay attention to reviews. This movie was a worldwide success and nobody can deny that.

You mean you couldn't care less (as I pointed out to Robin earlier in the thread)?

Can I deny that it was a success?
I can say that a lot of people went to see it.
I can say that it made money.
(A lot of people saw The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th and the Exorcist as well.)

Was it a success in portraying the Gospel?

I don't remember there being a part in any of the Gospels of a crow gouging out the eyes of one of the thieves on the cross.

My point of showing the reviews is that my view is shared by others.

So, it would be more accurate to say you don't care what anyone else thinks.You don't want to contemplate another view of the movie, and a critical questioning, not of the crucifiction of Christ,but of the way in which it was portrayed by Gibson.

 

[beanieboy]

This is the sentence I was responding to.
When Isaiah 53 says "by his stripes we are healed I take it to mean that his suffering was a part of what heals us.

Heals what? Heals us how?
Heals us from sin?

 

[Aimiel]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SOTK again.:sigh:

I got your back. :thumb:

 

[julie21]

My personal opinion in this, and it is only my own personal opinion and as such does not impact on what others hold to be true for them regarding Christ's suffering and death, is that
1.Above all, Christ suffered and died for me so that I would be set free
2. I do not need to focus on nor visualise the pain He went through, but will forever remember the pain and torment that He has released me from...that was a life without Him
3. I need to live my life in a way that brings merit to His suffering and sacrifice, by way of striving to achieve the full measure of Christ within myself
4. His grace came through His willing death, His sacrifice, His giving up His life for all...and it is that point that any movie etc should highlight..the 'reason' for it all. He wants us all to never forget the 'reason'. The 'reason' far outweighs the 'actions' because the 'reason' is His hope for us.
Just as the 'reason' that lies behind giving birth - love, hopes and dreams for our progeny- is remembered far longer than the 'action' - the pain of childbirth.

I probably have waffled and not done justice to my thoughts and feelings on this, but I hope you sort of get what I'm trying to convey .

 

[Aimiel]

Heals what? Heals us how?
Heals us from sin?

That's one way of looking at it, though He also healed, as well as 'made whole.' I refer to the ten lepers who He healed, and the one that came back to thank Him who was made 'whole.' :thumb:

 

[beanieboy]

That's one way of looking at it, though He also healed, as well as 'made whole.' I refer to the ten lepers who He healed, and the one that came back to thank Him who was made 'whole.' :thumb:

That is my take on it.
However, "Through his stripes we are healed", used to suggest that Jesus couldn't just be killed, but had to be abused, is neccesary means that we are made whole through him being whipped.

Totally on another tangent - he healed the lepers (among others) before the cross.
But he also forgave people for their sins before the crucifiction.

If he was able to forgive people of their sin prior to the crucifiction, why was the crucifiction necessary?

 

[On Fire]

They've made a movie about Matthew Shephard, but 1/4 of the movie wasn't watching him get beaten, pistol whipped, cigarettes being put out on his body, blood flying everywhere - all which was true.

And you don't know the difference?

 

[Aimiel]

If he was able to forgive people of their sin prior to the crucifiction, why was the crucifiction necessary?

Because the wages of sin is death, and He had to pay the price for men to become set free from that punishment. Those who are His will never see death. His Life is given to those who wish to be set from from their own death.