Tuis » Ernstig » Geloof & kerksake » Mel Gibson se Jesus
| Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90649] |
Do, 26 Februarie 2004 21:34  |
MoerFie
Boodskappe: 94
Geregistreer: Maart 2004
Karma: 0
|
Volle Lid |
|
|
Hier kom 'n ding!
Dat die arme Joodse mensies wêreldwyd nou skierlik so bang is oor die
gevolge van 'n film?
Ek kan nie onthou nie dat die Duitsers gebewe het oor die moontlike gevolge
van 'Exodus', 'The third reich' of 'The Pianist' .
Het die Afrikaners betoog oor "Chaka Zulu?"
(Ekskuus doktor Mulder, ek het nie helder gedink nie :)
Ek het geen Amerikaner sien kla oor die Westerns waar derduisende 'native
americans' afgemaai is nie. Sê nou net daar is 'n "backlash" en al die
Indiane in die reservate begin blanke amerikaners vermoor? Wat maak die
Jode spesiaal? Ek het nog altyd geglo hulle is geneties predisponeer om te
leef volgens die reëls van geweldadige vergelding. Dit is volgens my die
groot krisis in die Midde Ooste. Nie die ouens met die lelike lippe en die
vadoeke oor hulle koppe nie.
Oom soois die klip-innie-bos-gooiende-duiwelsadvokaat
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90650 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90649] |
Do, 26 Februarie 2004 22:49  |
Elaine
Boodskappe: 2948
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Die helfde van die spul het al begin moan nog voordat hulle die fliek gesien
het. Die beste, maar die beste advertensie vir 'n fliek. Kannie wag om te
sien waaroor almal so te kere gaan nie. As ek so na die uittreksels kyk lyk
dit rof genoeg, maar om darem die dam so onder die eend se gat uit te ruk is
darem maar te erg. Almal van die katolieke tot die Jode moan. Die
katolieke skrou dis te geweldadig en bloederig, maar as jy daaraan dink, en
jy lees die storie in die Bybel moes dit so gewees het soos oom Mel dit
uitbeeld. Die Jode sê dit gaan vooroordele teenoor hulle aanmoedig omdat
die fliek blykbaar uitbeeld dat dit hulle skuld is dat Jesus gekruisig.
BTW, Mel Gibson is 'n baie konserwatiewe, streng Katoliek - seker die dat
hy 7 kinders het.
E
"MoerFie" skryf in boodskap news:c1lopg$cmr$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Hier kom 'n ding!
>
> Dat die arme Joodse mensies wêreldwyd nou skierlik so bang is oor die
> gevolge van 'n film?
>
> Ek kan nie onthou nie dat die Duitsers gebewe het oor die moontlike gevolge
> van 'Exodus', 'The third reich' of 'The Pianist' .
>
> Het die Afrikaners betoog oor "Chaka Zulu?"
> (Ekskuus doktor Mulder, ek het nie helder gedink nie :)
>
> Ek het geen Amerikaner sien kla oor die Westerns waar derduisende 'native
> americans' afgemaai is nie. Sê nou net daar is 'n "backlash" en al die
> Indiane in die reservate begin blanke amerikaners vermoor? Wat maak die
> Jode spesiaal? Ek het nog altyd geglo hulle is geneties predisponeer om te
> leef volgens die reëls van geweldadige vergelding. Dit is volgens my die
> groot krisis in die Midde Ooste. Nie die ouens met die lelike lippe en die
> vadoeke oor hulle koppe nie.
>
> Oom soois die klip-innie-bos-gooiende-duiwelsadvokaat
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90652 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90649] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 03:34 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4803
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"MoerFie" wrote
> Hier kom 'n ding!
Vir my lyk dit of Mel Gibson so geakklimatiseer
is vir geweld deur Lethal Weapon 1 en Lethal
Weapon 11 dat hy nou die volgende gewelddadige
film op ons wil afstoot. Die Romeine het duisende
mense gekruisig terwyl hulle Judea regeer het.
Wat maak hierdie een anders?
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90658 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90650] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 05:49 |
PietR
Boodskappe: 3341
Geregistreer: Julie 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Is dit nie maar die Joodse standaard nie? Hulle moan al van '44 af oor die
Duitsers seep van hulle gekook het en jaarliks groei die getalle aan soos
wat die storie groei, maar as hulle dit doen, dan is hulle die uitverkorende
volk?
"Elaine" skryf in boodskap news:c1lt5s$ffk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Die helfde van die spul het al begin moan nog voordat hulle die fliek gesien
> het. Die beste, maar die beste advertensie vir 'n fliek. Kannie wag om te
> sien waaroor almal so te kere gaan nie. As ek so na die uittreksels kyk lyk
> dit rof genoeg, maar om darem die dam so onder die eend se gat uit te ruk is
> darem maar te erg. Almal van die katolieke tot die Jode moan. Die
> katolieke skrou dis te geweldadig en bloederig, maar as jy daaraan dink, en
> jy lees die storie in die Bybel moes dit so gewees het soos oom Mel dit
> uitbeeld. Die Jode sê dit gaan vooroordele teenoor hulle aanmoedig omdat
> die fliek blykbaar uitbeeld dat dit hulle skuld is dat Jesus gekruisig.
>
> BTW, Mel Gibson is 'n baie konserwatiewe, streng Katoliek - seker die dat
> hy 7 kinders het.
>
> E
>
>
> "MoerFie" wrote in message
> news:c1lopg$cmr$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>> Hier kom 'n ding!
>>
>> Dat die arme Joodse mensies wêreldwyd nou skierlik so bang is oor die
>> gevolge van 'n film?
>>
>> Ek kan nie onthou nie dat die Duitsers gebewe het oor die moontlike gevolge
>> van 'Exodus', 'The third reich' of 'The Pianist' .
>>
>> Het die Afrikaners betoog oor "Chaka Zulu?"
>> (Ekskuus doktor Mulder, ek het nie helder gedink nie :)
>>
>> Ek het geen Amerikaner sien kla oor die Westerns waar derduisende 'native
>> americans' afgemaai is nie. Sê nou net daar is 'n "backlash" en al die
>> Indiane in die reservate begin blanke amerikaners vermoor? Wat maak die
>> Jode spesiaal? Ek het nog altyd geglo hulle is geneties predisponeer om te
>> leef volgens die reëls van geweldadige vergelding. Dit is volgens my die
>> groot krisis in die Midde Ooste. Nie die ouens met die lelike lippe en die
>> vadoeke oor hulle koppe nie.
>>
>> Oom soois die klip-innie-bos-gooiende-duiwelsadvokaat
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90661 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90658] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 05:57 |
Annette
Boodskappe: 11114
Geregistreer: Augustus 2003
Karma: 1
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Ek dink hulle wil nie die skuld vat dat hulle Jesus nie beskerm het nie:))
Gister oor die nuus is vertel 'n vrou wat die vertoning gaan kyk het is dood
van skok. Daar is nie gesê of sy 'n Jodin is nie.
Die pous het glo die fliek geniet.
--
Annette
"Suidwester" skryf in boodskap news:403eda6b.0@news1.mweb.co.za...
> Is dit nie maar die Joodse standaard nie? Hulle moan al van '44 af oor die
> Duitsers seep van hulle gekook het en jaarliks groei die getalle aan soos
> wat die storie groei, maar as hulle dit doen, dan is hulle die uitverkorende
> volk?
> "Elaine" wrote in message
> news:c1lt5s$ffk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>> Die helfde van die spul het al begin moan nog voordat hulle die fliek gesien
>> het. Die beste, maar die beste advertensie vir 'n fliek. Kannie wag om te
>> sien waaroor almal so te kere gaan nie. As ek so na die uittreksels kyk lyk
>> dit rof genoeg, maar om darem die dam so onder die eend se gat uit te ruk is
>> darem maar te erg. Almal van die katolieke tot die Jode moan. Die
>> katolieke skrou dis te geweldadig en bloederig, maar as jy daaraan dink, en
>> jy lees die storie in die Bybel moes dit so gewees het soos oom Mel dit
>> uitbeeld. Die Jode sê dit gaan vooroordele teenoor hulle aanmoedig omdat
>> die fliek blykbaar uitbeeld dat dit hulle skuld is dat Jesus gekruisig.
>>
>> BTW, Mel Gibson is 'n baie konserwatiewe, streng Katoliek - seker die dat
>> hy 7 kinders het.
>>
>> E
>>
>>
>> "MoerFie" wrote in message
>> news:c1lopg$cmr$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>>> Hier kom 'n ding!
>>>
>>> Dat die arme Joodse mensies wêreldwyd nou skierlik so bang is oor die
>>> gevolge van 'n film?
>>>
>>> Ek kan nie onthou nie dat die Duitsers gebewe het oor die moontlike gevolge
>>> van 'Exodus', 'The third reich' of 'The Pianist' .
>>>
>>> Het die Afrikaners betoog oor "Chaka Zulu?"
>>> (Ekskuus doktor Mulder, ek het nie helder gedink nie :)
>>>
>>> Ek het geen Amerikaner sien kla oor die Westerns waar derduisende 'native
>>> americans' afgemaai is nie. Sê nou net daar is 'n "backlash" en al die
>>> Indiane in die reservate begin blanke amerikaners vermoor? Wat maak die
>>> Jode spesiaal? Ek het nog altyd geglo hulle is geneties predisponeer om te
>>> leef volgens die reëls van geweldadige vergelding. Dit is volgens my die
>>> groot krisis in die Midde Ooste. Nie die ouens met die lelike lippe en die
>>> vadoeke oor hulle koppe nie.
>>>
>>> Oom soois die klip-innie-bos-gooiende-duiwelsadvokaat
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90676 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90649] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 13:44 |
Annette
Boodskappe: 11114
Geregistreer: Augustus 2003
Karma: 1
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Nou toe nou - wat vertel jy my? Dan is al die prentjies en beeldjies wat ons
sien mos verkeerd - die neus is te klein:))
--
Annette
"Jonas" skryf in boodskap news:c1nf1s$amq$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Jesus was 'n jood.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90680 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90668] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 15:09 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4803
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Glucklich" wrote
>> Wat maak hierdie een anders?
>>
>> Gloudina
>
> Dis moontlik die domste ding wat jy al ooit gesê het antie!!!
Wonder of jy weet waarvan jy praat?
Het jy al ooit Michelangelo se Pieta
in die Vatikaan gesien? Weet jy hoe
die kruisiging deur die eeue deur
verskillende groot beeldhouers en
skilders uitgebeeld is? Hoekom moet
ons nou 'n skiet en donder movie
van Mel Gibson kry. Ek sê weer,
dit klink vir my of hierdie film in die
tradisie van die Lethal Weapons
movies is.
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus - interessante artikel (Engels) [boodskap #90681 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90680] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 16:56 |
Katryn
Boodskappe: 962
Geregistreer: Julie 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
> . Ek sê weer,
> dit klink vir my of hierdie film in die
> tradisie van die Lethal Weapons
> movies is.
En waarom nie Braveheart, nie?
The Passion of the Christ
Who Really Killed Jesus?
by Tim Callahan
(Tim Callahan is the Religion Editor for Skeptic
magazine and E-Skeptic magazine)
With the release of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" an
old controversy has been reignited. Because the film follows the
account (or rather accounts) in the gospels, the ugly accusation of
the blood libel against the Jews--that is, that they were responsible
for the death of Jesus and must bear that guilt forever--has been
raised once more. So, did the Jews sentence Jesus to death or did the
Romans? In answering that question we must remember, as I
point out in detail in Chapter 15 of my book Secret Origins of the
Bible, that virtually all of the New Testament narratives of the
Passion, from the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday to the
Resurrection, are entirely mythical. To answer the question of who was
responsible for sentencing Jesus to death we need to examine the
narrative of his trial before the high priest Ciaphas, the crowd
demanding that Barabbas be freed rather than Jesus, and the role
of Pontius Pilate, whom the Christian scriptures have nearly turned
into a saint.
The Two Trials of Jesus
According to the gospels, Jesus is arrested at night after being
betrayed by Judas and is taken under the cover of darkness to a secret
trial before the high priest Ciaphas. In Mark when Ciaphas asks Jesus
if he is "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed" (Mk. 14:61) Jesus
answers emphatically (v.62), "I am; and you will see the Son of man
sitting at the right hand of Power and coming in the clouds of
heaven." In Lk. 22:67-70 Jesus is less forthright, using the, "You
say that I am" idiomatic affirmative rather than a simple "yes." Yet
he still says that "the Son of man will be seated at the right hand of
power." Jesus' answer in Mt. 26:64 falls between those of Mark and
Luke. In Jn. 18:19-24 Ciaphas merely asks about Jesus' disciples and
teachings. Jesus says that his teachings are a matter of public
record. The claim of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and
Luke) that the priest would see him coming on the clouds,
is part of the apocalyptic nature of his ministry and an indication
that he expected the world to end in his generation. In his book,
Gospel Fictions, Dr. Randel Helms notes that this trial is impossible
to accept as historical, at least in its particulars (Helms 1988, p.
118):
Mark's account of the trial must be speculative, since there were no
followers of Jesus present to report on it later: "the disciples all deserted him and
ran away" at his arrest (Mark 14:50). Early Christians, in composing an
account of the trial, followed the usual method of gathering information about Jesus
in the absence of real evidence: they went to the Old Testament.
Specifically, Helms cites Daniel 6:4 and verses from Psalms 27:12 and 35:11
In Dan. 6:4 the satraps of the Persian Empire seek grounds to lodge charges
against him, but can find none, which parallels Mk. 15:55 in which the chief
priests seek testimony by which they might put Jesus to death, but can find none.
In Mk. 14:56, 57 we are told that many bore false witness against Jesus and
that their testimony did not agree. Both psalm verses concern false witnesses.
In Ps. 27:12 the psalmist says, "false witnesses have risen against me," and
Ps. 35:11 says: "Malicious witnesses rise up/they ask me of things that I
know not."
Fundamentalists often claim that the similarities between events in the
gospels and material from the Jewish scriptures indicates that what happened in the
life of Jesus was plainly foretold in the Old Testament. But Helms points out
time and again that the Greek of the gospels and the Greek of the Septuagint
(the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek for the benefit of Hellenized
Diaspora Jews who no longer spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic) is so close to word
use and phrasing, sometimes being identical, that the gospel writers had to
have been copying the material. Also, his point that there were no witnesses
sympathetic to Jesus at his supposed trial before Ciaphas would seem irrefutable.
Believers might say that members of the court who would have reported the
unfairness of the trial were there and kept silent during the proceedings, only
revealing the false testimony to the gospel writers later. But in fact the
gospels make mention of no such people. Thus, they either didn't exist or, if
revealing them would imperil them, they would more likely have kept silent, rather
than give the author of Mark an exclusive interview some 20 or more years later.
In fact, the gospels do mention two well situated men who were followers of
Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. If we were to accept the gospels as
historical to any degree, we would have to accept that the association of these
men with Jesus was common knowledge. Thus, if they had witnessed the trial at
least one of the gospels would have mentioned that fact. This only leaves
Jesus as a sympathetic witness, which means that he had to have imparted a
narrative of the trial during one of his post-resurrection appearances, none of
which are mentioned in Mark. This is stretching things a bit, and using Jesus as
the supernatural source means that we have to accept his divinity and the
gospel record as divinely inspired in order to use the gospels as a source upon
which to base the opinion that Jesus was divine and did what the gospels (when
they agree) say he did. In other words, the reasoning gets circular.
As to what happened after the first trial, Mark 15 has only a brief hearing
before Pilate (verses 1-5), whose character is not developed at all, before the
mob chooses between Jesus and Barabbas. The same is true of Mt. 27:11-14. In
Lk. 23:1-25 everyone seems afraid to deal with Jesus. The priests give him to
Pilate to try. He says that he sees no fault in the man, but upon finding that
he is a Galilean, he sends him to Herod Antipas. Herod questions him at
length and gets no answer. His soldiers mock and abuse Jesus, something the Romans
do in the other gospels. Then he sends Jesus back to Pilate, who says he will
chastise and release Jesus, but the Jews demand Barabbas be released instead.
In Jn. 18:28-19:22 Pilate is fully developed and quite sympathetic.
There are five points I would like to examine concerning Jesus before Pilate.
They are: (1) the equivocal answers Jesus makes, (2) the increasing
development of the character of Pilate, (3) the origins of the Barabbas episode, (4)
the growing anti-semitism of the mob scene, and (5) the historicity of the whole
segment.
1. Jesus
Let us begin with the response of Jesus to Pilate's questions. In Mk. 15:1-5
Pilate asks the question that is important to the Romans: "Are you the king of
the Jews?" He gets no answer. In Mt. 27: 11 Jesus answers, "You have said
so." This could be an affirmative answer, or perhaps Jesus is merely deflecting
the question. The Jewish priests and elders then make many charges against
Jesus before Pilate, who says (Mt. 27; 13), "Do you not hear how many things they
testify against you?" But Jesus gives him no answer. In Lk. 23:4 Jesus'
equivocal answer causes Pilate to say, "I find no crime in this man." To this the
Jewish authorities respond that Jesus has been stirring up the people in both
Galilee and Judea. This prompts Pilate to ask if Jesus is a Galilean, and when
he finds that he is, he sends Jesus to Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, who
is in Jerusalem at the time, presumably for the Passover (though the
Herodeans are treated in the gospels as being less than pious). This enables Luke to
say that Herod's soldiers, not Pilate's, mocked and abused Jesus, even arraying
him in "gorgeous apparel" (Lk. 23:11).
This is at variance with all the other gospels, and, given that in Mark and
Matthew the mocking of Jesus is because he has been found guilty of claiming to
be the king of the Jews, that Luke has Herod do it to a man he hasn't found
guilty shows it to be an obvious fiction. Jesus is as mute before Herod as he
had been before Pilate. Why is this? If Jesus intended to die and rise from the
grave, there would be no reason for him not to say that he was the king of
the Jews just as he had said to the Sanhedrin that he was the Son of man, who
they would see coming in the clouds seated at the right hand of power. If, on
the other hand, he had no intention of making such a claim, then disputing the
charges would have been his logical course. The reason for the silence of Jesus
is that the song of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah (Is. 52:13-53:12) was
taken to be prophetic of Jesus, and in Is. 53:7 we are told of the suffering
servant that he was oppressed but "opened not his mouth." Instead he was led like
lamb to the slaughter and, like a sheep, is dumb before its shearers. While
this poem was mined for allusions that could be applied to Jesus, the servant
songs of Isaiah in many cases refer to the servant as the Jewish people (see Is.
42:18-24; 44:1, 2, 49:3). That the silence of Jesus doesn't make sense except
in the context of making Is. 53:7 prophetic indicates that the material of
the gospels has been made to fit Isaiah rather than Isaiah being prophetic of
Jesus.
In John, Jesus is anything but mute. When Pilate first asks him if he is the
king of the Jews, Jesus asks him a question in turn Qn. 18:34): "Do you say
this of your own accord, or did others say it about me?" When Pilate presses the
issue, Jesus answers (Jn. 18:36): "My kingship is not of this world; if my
kingship were of this world my servants would fight that I might not be handed
over to the Jews; but my kingship is not of this world."
Pilate persists in asking Jesus if he is a king, which leads to the climactic
exchange between them (Jn. 18:37, 38):
Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a
king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear
witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice." Pilate said
to him, "What is truth?"
As Frank Miele has noted, this perfect opportunity for Jesus to expound on
the nature of truth was either missed by the Savior or the author of the gospel,
leaving us--Christians and non-Christians alike--to find the truth on our
own. Despite failing to answer this specific question, however, Jesus, in
conversing with Pilate, appears not to be fulfilling any prophecy out of Isaiah in
John's very different rendition of his final trial.
2. Pilate
In Jn. 29:1-16, his soldiers having scourged Jesus and crowned him with
thorns, Pilate repeatedly tries to release him (verses. 4-6, 12, 14-16). However,
against his will, the people demand that Jesus be crucified. Pilate's final act
is to write the sign posted on the cross in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, "Jesus
of Nazareth, King of the Jews." When the chief priests of the Jews ask him not
to write that Jesus was a king but that he claimed to be king, he says (Jn.
19:22), "What I have written, I have written." Pilate, then, has accepted what
the Jews cannot, that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. In Luke 23 and Matthew 15
Pilate attempts to free Jesus three times, and in Mt. 27:19 Pilate's wife sends
him word not to have anything to do with "that righteous man" since she has
suffered from a bad dream about him already that day. Accordingly, Pilate,
having asked the Jews twice whether they would rather have Jesus or Barabbas
released to them, excuses himself from executing Jesus in the famous scene
from Mt. 27:24-26:
So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was
beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am
innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves." And all the people
answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" Then he released for them
Barabbas and having scourged Jesus, delivered him up to be crucified.
There are two related themes that are developed to their fullest in John and
Matthew in these accounts which contrast the reluctance of Pilate to crucify
Jesus with the vehemence of the crowd to see him die. These are the near
sanctification of Pontius Pilate, reaching its culmination in John, and the rise in
anti-semitism culminating in Matthew with the people eagerly saying, "His
blood be upon us and upon our children." This verse, the infamous blood libel,
has, unfortunately, been the justification of much bloodshed, in that the Jews
are seen as actively taking on the guilt of putting Jesus to death.
Whence came this anti-semitism? It is likely that the earliest of the
gospels, Mark, was written after the fall of Jerusalem in CE 70. In the revolt
against Rome, those Jews of the Christian sect took a pacifist stance, believing no
doubt that the struggle was pointless because Jesus was soon to return in
glory to set up the heavenly kingdom. It was probably at this point that the other
Jews completely severed relations with the Christians. Hence, increasingly
the gospels show antagonism toward the Jews. In Jn. 18:36 Jesus specifically
tells Pilate that, had his kingdom been of this world his servants wouldn't have
allowed him to be handed over to the Jews. Here it would seem that Jesus
doesn't see either himself or his followers as being Jewish. As the Jews became the
villains of the piece, the Roman official in charge of sentencing Jesus to be
crucified had to be increasingly rehabilitated. This also fit the Christian
policy of not actively opposing the Roman state. Thus, if the Jews were the
real culprits, then the Christians could say that they really didn't oppose the
will of Rome.
3. Barabbas
What the gospels needed to shift the blame to the Jews was a mechanism
whereby the Romans could offer to let Jesus go free, and the Jews could refuse the
offer. Enter Barabbas. In Mk. 15:7 and Lk. 23:19 he is identified as one who
had committed murder and insurrection. In Mt. 27:16 he is merely referred to as
a "notorious prisoner," and in Jn. 18:40 he is reduced to being a mere robber.
It seems that, along with the Jews, Barabbas is successively denigrated in
Matthew and John. Therefore, the question becomes: Who was Barabbas? Many Bible
dictionaries translate the name as Aramaic for "son (bar) of Abba," which they
say was a common enough name. According to other interpretations, he is the
son of a rabbi or teacher, as in bar Rabba(n). In fact, if we also translate
the last part of his name, he becomes "son (bar) of the father (abba)." That
some early versions of Matthew refer to him as Jesus Barabbas helps clarify
Pilate's question in Mt. 27:17: "Whom do you want me to release to you, Barabbas or
Jesus who is called the Christ?" There really isn't any reason for adding
"who is called the Christ" to the question unless the two men have the same name.
It's simpler for Pilate to say, "Whom do you want me to release to you,
Barabbas or Jesus?" But "who is called the Christ" makes sense if the question
originally read, "Whom do you want me to release to you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus
who is called the Christ?" Now, however, we have a bit of an identity crisis,
since one of the men is "Jesus son of the father" and the other is "Jesus
Christ who has admitted being the Son of God." Thus, the next question that comes
to mind is: Was Barabbas a real person?
To understand the Barabbas episode one must remember that there was a
Babylonian festival called Zagmuku, which was the source of the Jewish holiday Purim,
and especially the source for the opposite fates of Mordecai and Haman in the
Book of Esther. During Zagmuku, the king was replaced by a mock king called
Zoganes, usually a condemned prisoner. He was allowed to wear the king's crown,
given the king's scepter, and even free run of the royal harem. But at the
end of the festival he was stripped of his royal robes and crown, scourged and
put to death either by hanging or crucifixion. The gospels all record the
scourging and mocking of Jesus. The graphic depiction of that event in Mt. 27:27-30
is particularly reminiscent of the end of the mock king in the Zagmuku festival:
Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the praetorium, and they
gathered the whole battalion before him. And they stripped him and put a scarlet
robe upon him, and plaiting a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and
put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him they mocked him, saying,
"Hail, King of the Jews!" And they spat upon him, and took the reed and struck
him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe,
and put his own clothes on him, and led him away to crucify him.
In a play given during Zagmuku, two actors portrayed characters who were the
source of the roles of Mordecai and Haman in Esther, in that one expects royal
honors but is put to death, while one seems destined for death but escapes
with his life. This would also seem to be the source of Jesus called the Christ
and Jesus Barabbas. However, given that the Romans would have been likely to
first humiliate a man they perceived as raising a revolt before putting him to
a protracted and painful death, how can we know whether the story of Barabbas
and the mocking of Jesus are real or mythical?
4. The Mob
To answer that question let us ask another. What do we have to accept as true
to believe the gospel accounts of the freeing of Barabbas and the scourging
of Jesus? We have to accept that the Romans would acquiesce to the whims of a
subject people to the degree that they would release--according to the demands
of a mob--a man guilty of insurrection, precisely the crime for which Jesus
was being put to death. We would also have to believe that Pilate had so little
control of the situation that the mob could force him to release a violent
criminal and let someone he had found not guilty be put to death. Further, we
have to believe that letting Barabbas go was somehow tied to putting Jesus to
death. If such a custom as letting a condemned man go free existed, there is no
reason to believe that such an action required the execution of an innocent
man. However, such a symmetry would fit a work of fiction and it certainly fits
the Zagmuku play. The idea that Pilate would or even could let a condemned
rebel go free or that he could afford to let a mob dictate even a small part of
his policy seems unlikely. The usual Roman response to a show of force on the
part of a rabble would most likely have been lethal. Further, we must remember
that Pilate was mentored by Lucius Aelius Sejanus, a captain of the
Praetorian Guard who attempted to take over the Roman Empire during the reign of
Tiberius. Sejanus was a complete scoundrel, and, as his protege, Pilate would hardly
have been as saintly as he was painted in Matthew and John.
Another possible source of the mocking of Jesus is the Athenian festival of
Thargelia in which either a misshapen or condemned man, along with a deformed
woman were driven out of the city as scapegoats. This parallels the scapegoat
given to the demon Azazel in the Yom Kippur ceremony in ancient Israel. So such
festivals, in which a condemned man was either mocked before being put to
death or bore the sins of the community as a subsitutionary atonement, were
prevalent long before the time of Jesus. In fact, the ritual laying of sins on a
chosen human or animal appears to be a nearly universal practice. Thus, it seems
likely that the whole Barabbas incident derives from the same genre of
powerful mythic material upon which the idea of Jesus dying for our
sins was based.
5. So, who really killed Jesus?
Given all the mythic elaboration on whatever historical kernel lies at the
base of the Passion narratives, can we say who killed Jesus? Some comentators,
defending Gibson's film, have pointed out that Jewish authorities writing in
the Talmud accepted responsibility for the death of Jesus. However, one must
remember that by the time of these writings, in the second century CE, the lines
of conflict between Jews and Christians--whom the Rabbinical writers
considered heretics--had hardened to the degree that the claim to having put Jesus to
death was considered a righteous defense of Jewish orthodoxy. Also, I might
add that if Jewish writers of the second century can be considered reliable
sources then the same must be said of Roman writers of the time. In Book 1,
chapter 15 of his Annals of Imperial Rome, Tacitus (ca 55-ca. 120 CE), says of the
Christians:
Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the
governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly
superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had
started), but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and
flourish in the capitol.
Here Tacitus, showing the same antagonism for Christianity evidenced in the
Talmudic writers, says that it was temporarily checked when Pontius Pilate--not
the Jewish authorities--executed Jesus. In summation, the trial before
Ciaphas, the Barabbas episode, the reluctance of Pilate to condemn Jesus, and the
Jewish mob demanding his death are, like every other aspect of the Passion and
Resurrection narratives, pure fiction. The bare bones of the historical core of
what is essentially grand myth is that Jesus was put to death by the
Romans--not the Jews--for sedition.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90682 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90676] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 17:39 |
Paul de Dilbeek
Boodskappe: 400
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Hy het ook nie keppeltjie nie
"Annette" skryf in boodskap news:c1nht3$c12$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Nou toe nou - wat vertel jy my? Dan is al die prentjies en beeldjies wat ons
> sien mos verkeerd - die neus is te klein:))
> --
> Annette
> "Jonas" wrote in message
> news:c1nf1s$amq$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>> Jesus was 'n jood.
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90683 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90649] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 18:02 |
Katryn
Boodskappe: 962
Geregistreer: Julie 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:34:39 +0200, "MoerFie" wrote:
> Hier kom 'n ding!
>
> Dat die arme Joodse mensies wêreldwyd nou skierlik so bang is oor die
> gevolge van 'n film?
Ek het netnou n artikel van Tim Callahan geplaas, maar het vergeet
Michael Shermer se voorwoord ook te plaas. In elkgeval, pas dit dalk
beter by hierdie vraag van jou, So here goes:
"Allow me one brief comment of a theological nature. If Jesus did not
die for our sins then there is no point in being a Christian--one
might as well be a Jew (no religious belief is also acceptable). If
Jesus did die for our sins--indeed, if he HAD to die for our sins as
we are told he did in order for us to be saved--then why must ANYONE
be blamed, let alone condemned?
If this was a foreordained event by God, then it was out of human
hands. If it was not predetermined by God and was instead a contingent
event that might or might not have happened, shouldn't we be THANKING
the Jews (or the Romans) for doing the unpleasant but necessary deed?
After all, thanks to the crucifixion and the resurrection, all who
accept it are born again, saved, and will have everlasting
life. Shouldn't Pilate, Barabbas, and Ciaphas get special dispensation
from God?"
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90685 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90668] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 20:03 |
Afrikaner
Boodskappe: 546
Geregistreer: Oktober 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 06:38:22 -0500, "Glucklich" wrote:
>> Wat maak hierdie een anders?
>> Gloudina
>
> Dis moontlik die domste ding wat jy al ooit gesê het antie!!!
>
>
>
Soos Gluclich sê: 'die domste ding wat jy ooit gesê het anti!
Indien Siddharta Gotama ook vasgespyker was, sou jy anders
gevoel het, né. Die domste ding wat jy ooit gesê het.
DD
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90687 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90683] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 20:24 |
MoerFie
Boodskappe: 94
Geregistreer: Maart 2004
Karma: 0
|
Volle Lid |
|
|
" If Jesus did not die for our sins then there is no point in being a
Christian"
Hierdie perd sê basies wat ek nog altyd geglo het, spesifiek n.a.v. die
voorafbeplandheid en onvermydelikheid van die kruisdood. Ek gaan beslis
niemand kwalik neem vir diee een gebeurtenis in menseheugenis wat vir my 'n
poort na die ewigheid geopen het nie. Hoe verskriklik ook al die lyding,
hoe ontsaglik brutaal en barbaars dit voorkom, hierdie is die enigste manier
wat enige onvolmaakte mens die hiernamaals kan betree. Di ou wat eintlik al
ons haat en woede moet trotseer, is Adam. Hy is supposedly die ou wat die
hele trein laat ontspoor het.
"Shouldn't Pilate, Barabbas, and Ciaphas get special dispensation from God?"
Hulle het 'special dispensation' gekry: Varder vergeef hulle, want hulle
weet nie wat hulle doen nie"
Soois die filosoof
"Katryn" wrote in message
> "Allow me one brief comment of a theological nature. If Jesus did not
> die for our sins then there is no point in being a Christian--one
> might as well be a Jew (no religious belief is also acceptable). If
> Jesus did die for our sins--indeed, if he HAD to die for our sins as
> we are told he did in order for us to be saved--then why must ANYONE
> be blamed, let alone condemned?
>
> If this was a foreordained event by God, then it was out of human
> hands. If it was not predetermined by God and was instead a contingent
> event that might or might not have happened, shouldn't we be THANKING
> the Jews (or the Romans) for doing the unpleasant but necessary deed?
> After all, thanks to the crucifixion and the resurrection, all who
> accept it are born again, saved, and will have everlasting
> life. Shouldn't Pilate, Barabbas, and Ciaphas get special dispensation
> from God?"
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90688 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90685] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 20:33 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4803
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"DD" wrote
> Soos Gluclich sê: 'die domste ding wat jy ooit gesê het anti!
> Indien Siddharta Gotama ook vasgespyker was, sou jy anders
> gevoel het, né. Die domste ding wat jy ooit gesê het.
Dit wys maar net jou eie domheid. En die vlak
peil van jou spirituele lewe. As die kruisiging van
Christus en sy lyding al is wat spesiaal is aan hom,
dan sou mens dieselfde kon sê van al die ander
Jode wat die Romeine ook gekruisig het omdat
hulle "gevaarlik" was. Maar Christus was anders.
Hy was spesiaal. En daarom het sy via dolorosa
die geskiedenis verander. Miskien moet jy meer
luister na wat die Dalai Lama sê oor die betekenis
van Christus en wat hy predik, en dan sal jy ophou
om gif te spoeg teen ander spirituele soeke.
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90691 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90649] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 23:25 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4803
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"DD wrote
> Vlak sê jy? Gif spoeg teen spirituele soeke noem jy dit?
> Wanneer my leesstof die volgende insluit? (:)
Wat help dit om ander aan te haal? Alleen as ek
in jou geskrifte sien dat "liefde jou oorgeneem
het," dat jy bereid is om op jou knieë te gaan
en almal ( ook die kaffers) se voete te was,
dan sal ek begin om te glo dat jy werklik
"gered" word "deur Christus." Solank jy nog
gif spoeg, bewys dit dat jy kultuurpolitiek wil
speel met "godsdiens." Solank jy nog wil
predik dat net jou siening "reg" is, is jy op
'n dwaalspoor en verkondig jy kettery.
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90694 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90658] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 23:33 |
Elaine
Boodskappe: 2948
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Ek wou dit net nie hardop sê nie.
"Suidwester" skryf in boodskap news:403eda6b.0@news1.mweb.co.za...
> Is dit nie maar die Joodse standaard nie? Hulle moan al van '44 af oor die
> Duitsers seep van hulle gekook het en jaarliks groei die getalle aan soos
> wat die storie groei, maar as hulle dit doen, dan is hulle die uitverkorende
> volk?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90695 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90652] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 23:45 |
Elaine
Boodskappe: 2948
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Askies - geweld? In Lethal Weapon? O hemel nee, dis nie geweld daai nie -
dis "entertainment"! As jy geweld wil sien kyk "Saving Private Ryan" of
"Fight Club". Hel sit die T.V aan en kyk "The Shield", "Oz" en die eerste 3
reekse van "The Soprano's" (die 4de reeks: "too much yacking and not enough
wacking"). DIS geweld. Lethal Weapon is komedie.
In elk geval, niemand dwing die fliek op jou af nie. As jy hom nie wil gaan
kyk nie dan hoef jy mos nie? Daar's g'n wet in die wêreld wat jou dwing om
na Mel Gibson se flieks te gaan kyk nie. Buitendien was hy net die akteur
in die Lethal Weapon flieks, hy't dit nie "gemaak" (wat's die Afrikaanse
woord vir direct?) nie. Hy't Braveheart gemaak, en nou ook The Passion (hy
speel nie in die fliek nie).
Ek dink hy's briljant. Een van die beste akteurs van ons tyd - maar dis net
my opinie.
E
"@rogers.com" wrote:
>
> Vir my lyk dit of Mel Gibson so geakklimatiseer
> is vir geweld deur Lethal Weapon 1 en Lethal
> Weapon 11 dat hy nou die volgende gewelddadige
> film op ons wil afstoot.
>
> Gloudina
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90696 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90691] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 23:53 |
Afrikaner
Boodskappe: 546
Geregistreer: Oktober 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:25:50 GMT, "@rogers.com" wrote:
> Solank jy nog wil
> predik dat net jou siening "reg" is, is jy op
> 'n dwaalspoor en verkondig jy kettery.
>
> Gloudina
>
So, wanneer ek die Bybel kwoteer, noem jy dit kettery:-(
Want die Bybel sê dat slegs die Christelike leer reg is.
Jy hoef nie hierop te antwoord nie, want die afgelope
jare het ek dit meer as een keer gesê. En jy bly dom
genoeg om dit as my stelling te sien.
Ek sal enige antwoord wat jy hierop gee, ignoreer,
want dit is nie my woorde nie, maar dié van die Skrif.
DD
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90697 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90683] |
Vr, 27 Februarie 2004 23:55 |
Elaine
Boodskappe: 2948
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Inderdaad, en elke ware Christen sien dit so. Die punt is, die Jode DINK
ons blameer hulle - ongelukkig kan niemand hulle van mening laat verander
nie. Ek het nooit eers gedink dis die Jode of die Romeine se skuld nie,
maar net aanvaar "dit moes so wees" totdat ek die Jode hoor moan het. Ek
dink hulle "wakker" partykeer vooroodeel teenoor hulleself aan met hulle eie
blêrrie gemoan. Sien as daar vooroordeel is kan hulle kla en kan hulle met
hierdie "die wêreld skuld ons iets" attitude deur die lewe gaan. Ek reken
die 2de wêreldoorlog storie word nou holrug gery, en niemand wil meer
luister nie - nou moet hulle iets anders kry om oor te kla.
En in geval enige iemand wonder - ek's nie teen Jode nie, ek het saam met
baie skool gegaan en was vriende met die meeste van hulle, en die mens wat
ek die meeste bewonder is 'n Jood. Ek het net so groot probleem met 'n
radikale Christen of 'n radikale Afrikaner as wat ek het met 'n 20-jarige
Jood wat nog steeds dink ons skuld hom iets omdat sy Oupagrootjie in
Aushwitz dood is. Sê maar net...
E
"Katryn" wrote:
>
> "Allow me one brief comment of a theological nature. If Jesus did not
> die for our sins then there is no point in being a Christian--one
> might as well be a Jew (no religious belief is also acceptable). If
> Jesus did die for our sins--indeed, if he HAD to die for our sins as
> we are told he did in order for us to be saved--then why must ANYONE
> be blamed, let alone condemned?
>
> If this was a foreordained event by God, then it was out of human
> hands. If it was not predetermined by God and was instead a contingent
> event that might or might not have happened, shouldn't we be THANKING
> the Jews (or the Romans) for doing the unpleasant but necessary deed?
> After all, thanks to the crucifixion and the resurrection, all who
> accept it are born again, saved, and will have everlasting
> life. Shouldn't Pilate, Barabbas, and Ciaphas get special dispensation
> from God?"
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90700 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90696] |
Sa, 28 Februarie 2004 04:28 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4803
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"DD" wrote
> Want die Bybel sê dat slegs die Christelike leer reg is.
Komaan, du plessis, meer as die helfte van die
Bybel is gevul met die leringe en die wette van
die Jode. Wil jy vir my vertel dat jy nou die
Joodse geloof aangeneem het?
En waar in die Nuwe Testament word dit gesê
"dat slegs die Christelike leer reg is." Ek dink
dis opgemaak deur jou en jou trawante vir
kultuurpolitieke gewin. Dis opgemaak deur
pouse in die Middeleeue wat nie eens
godsdienstig was nie. Net om 'n ekskuus te
kry om teen die Mohammedane te veg.
Gaan terug en lees die bergpredikasie en
dan kom praat jy weer met my oor "wat
Christus gesê het."
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90709 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90697] |
Sa, 28 Februarie 2004 13:06 |
MoerFie
Boodskappe: 94
Geregistreer: Maart 2004
Karma: 0
|
Volle Lid |
|
|
HOOR HOOR!!!!
"Elaine" skryf in boodskap news:c1oldk$1o2$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Inderdaad, en elke ware Christen sien dit so. Die punt is, die Jode DINK
> ons blameer hulle - ongelukkig kan niemand hulle van mening laat verander
> nie. Ek het nooit eers gedink dis die Jode of die Romeine se skuld nie,
> maar net aanvaar "dit moes so wees" totdat ek die Jode hoor moan het. Ek
> dink hulle "wakker" partykeer vooroodeel teenoor hulleself aan met hulle eie
> blêrrie gemoan. Sien as daar vooroordeel is kan hulle kla en kan hulle met
> hierdie "die wêreld skuld ons iets" attitude deur die lewe gaan. Ek reken
> die 2de wêreldoorlog storie word nou holrug gery, en niemand wil meer
> luister nie - nou moet hulle iets anders kry om oor te kla.
>
> En in geval enige iemand wonder - ek's nie teen Jode nie, ek het saam met
> baie skool gegaan en was vriende met die meeste van hulle, en die mens wat
> ek die meeste bewonder is 'n Jood. Ek het net so groot probleem met 'n
> radikale Christen of 'n radikale Afrikaner as wat ek het met 'n 20-jarige
> Jood wat nog steeds dink ons skuld hom iets omdat sy Oupagrootjie in
> Aushwitz dood is. Sê maar net...
>
> E
>
> "Katryn" wrote:
>>
>> "Allow me one brief comment of a theological nature. If Jesus did not
>> die for our sins then there is no point in being a Christian--one
>> might as well be a Jew (no religious belief is also acceptable). If
>> Jesus did die for our sins--indeed, if he HAD to die for our sins as
>> we are told he did in order for us to be saved--then why must ANYONE
>> be blamed, let alone condemned?
>>
>> If this was a foreordained event by God, then it was out of human
>> hands. If it was not predetermined by God and was instead a contingent
>> event that might or might not have happened, shouldn't we be THANKING
>> the Jews (or the Romans) for doing the unpleasant but necessary deed?
>> After all, thanks to the crucifixion and the resurrection, all who
>> accept it are born again, saved, and will have everlasting
>> life. Shouldn't Pilate, Barabbas, and Ciaphas get special dispensation
>> from God?"
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90726 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90649] |
So, 29 Februarie 2004 08:22 |
emmy[1]
Boodskappe: 865
Geregistreer: April 2001
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Jonas wrote:
> Jesus was 'n jood.
In geen enkel Romeins schrift wordt Jezus genoemd!!
Een bewijs dat hij gekruisigd is is er niet.
Er staat wel dat er meerdere predikers waren.
Als Jezus er is geweest dan is hij in ieder geval niet opgevallen door de
Romeinen
Een bijzonder iemand met een andere leer als de Joodse leer moet toch zijn
opgevallen en in minstens EEN Romeins geschrift vermeld zijn.
Grt emmy
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus - interessante artikel (Engels) [boodskap #90730 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90681] |
So, 29 Februarie 2004 11:33 |
$$$from...
Boodskappe: 12
Geregistreer: Februarie 2004
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Om n lang storie kort te knip, die jode het vir JESUS na die kruis gestuur
en hulle het ook vir Pontuis Pilatus in so 'n hoek gedruif dat hy "so
genaamd sy hande in onskuld gewas het" en die jode toegelaat het om met die
kruisiging voort te gaan. Dit was net wat die jode as wel die romeine wou
h'e
"Katryn" skryf in boodskap news:qqsu30h8mndf2m21gjtnpahagcqjodvo29@4ax.com...
>
>> . Ek sê weer,
>> dit klink vir my of hierdie film in die
>> tradisie van die Lethal Weapons
>> movies is.
>
> En waarom nie Braveheart, nie?
>
>
>
> The Passion of the Christ
> Who Really Killed Jesus?
> by Tim Callahan
> (Tim Callahan is the Religion Editor for Skeptic
> magazine and E-Skeptic magazine)
>
> With the release of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" an
[knip]
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90742 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90700] |
So, 29 Februarie 2004 14:32 |
$$$from...
Boodskappe: 12
Geregistreer: Februarie 2004
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Jesus homself het gepraat dat hy sy eie kerk gaan bou, dit meen nie net jode
nie. Daarom het die 12 uitgegaan om die word aan ieder en elk te gaan
verkondig. 'N goeie voorbeeld daarvan is Poulus wat in ander lande gepreek
het. Ook het Jesus ons die nuwe gebod gebring " Jy moet jou naaste lief he
soos jouself en God bo alle dinge". Dit stel ons vry van al die joodse
gebooie en fieterjasies wat hulle nog steeds aanhang. So, as jy in God en
Jesus glo, is jy nie noodwendig 'n jood nie. Daar is well een ding wat
opvallend is van meeste gelowe, en dit is dat hulle almal probeer om ons te
laat verstaan dat daar moreele sake is wat nooit verander nie en glad nie
verskill van geloof tot geloof nie. Gelowe soos Budda en Muhammad gee wel
aan dat hulle profeete is en nie die Seun van God is nie, wat well die geval
van Jesus is. Ek kan dit ophaal uit die bybel maar dit sal baie lank neem.
So, geniet die kort weergawe.
"@rogers.com" wrote in message
news:YNU%b.40388$Qg7.30730@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers. com...
>
> "DD" wrote
>
>> Want die Bybel sê dat slegs die Christelike leer reg is.
>
> Komaan, du plessis, meer as die helfte van die
> Bybel is gevul met die leringe en die wette van
> die Jode. Wil jy vir my vertel dat jy nou die
> Joodse geloof aangeneem het?
> En waar in die Nuwe Testament word dit gesê
> "dat slegs die Christelike leer reg is." Ek dink
> dis opgemaak deur jou en jou trawante vir
> kultuurpolitieke gewin. Dis opgemaak deur
> pouse in die Middeleeue wat nie eens
> godsdienstig was nie. Net om 'n ekskuus te
> kry om teen die Mohammedane te veg.
> Gaan terug en lees die bergpredikasie en
> dan kom praat jy weer met my oor "wat
> Christus gesê het."
>
> Gloudina
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90745 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90742] |
So, 29 Februarie 2004 15:16 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4803
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
FRED" wrote
Gelowe soos Budda en Muhammad gee wel
> aan dat hulle profeete is en nie die Seun van God is nie, wat well die geval
> van Jesus is
Buddhisme is nie 'n "geloof" nie. Dit probeer nie
mense bekeer nie. Dit het 'n psigologiese-fisiologiese
strekking. Dit is myns insiens 'n poging meer as twee-
duisend jaar gelede om vir mense die realiteit van
relatiwiteit te laat verstaan. Maar as mens ernstig
is oor die bereiking van 'n staat waar die ego uitge-
blus is ( die saad het in die grond geval en gesterf
in Christelike parlance) en mens leef in 'n staat waar
"liefde" ( die Christelike maatstaf vir redding) alleen
die dryfkrag is, dan is die yogas van die Boeddhiste
'n voortreflike hulpmiddel om hierdie doel te
bereik. As jy deur na Christus se woorde te
luister en sy voetstappe te volg hierdie pad kan
loop, dan moedig die Dalai Lama jou aan om nie
jou Christelike pad op te gee nie, maar dit baie
baie ernstig op te neem. Maar dit sal moet insluit
baie ure van op jou knieë deurbring, en baie
voete van jou naaste wat jy sal moet was. Ook sal
jy elke lewende ding, nie net mense nie, moet
respekteer. Jy is nie eens veronderstel om 'n muskiet
dood te slaan nie.
Gloudina
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson [boodskap #90748 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90695] |
So, 29 Februarie 2004 15:43 |
Katryn
Boodskappe: 962
Geregistreer: Julie 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:45:20 +0200, "Elaine" wrote:
> Ek dink hy's briljant. Een van die beste akteurs van ons tyd - maar dis net
> my opinie.
Ek hou ook van hom. Weet nie of hy briljant is nie, maar ek is mal
oor sy sin van humor, en dit lyk altyd of hy iets stouts gaan aanvang.
Ek dink ook hy is erg sexy. ;-)
'n Fliek van hom wat ek ook baie geniet het was "When we were
soldiers". So 2 of 3 jaar gelede? Het jy dit al gesien? Daardie
tema musiek gee my elke keer rillings.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90749 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90687] |
So, 29 Februarie 2004 15:47 |
Katryn
Boodskappe: 962
Geregistreer: Julie 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:24:36 +0200, "MoerFie" wrote:
> Hoe verskriklik ook al die lyding,
> hoe ontsaglik brutaal en barbaars dit voorkom, hierdie is die enigste manier
> wat enige onvolmaakte mens die hiernamaals kan betree.
Ek moet erken dat as ongelowige is die hele ding vir my vreeslik
barbaars. Die hele konsep van menslike slagoffers laat my maag draai.
Dit is 'n vreeslike bloedige en geweldadige geloof (van buite gesien)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90750 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90697] |
So, 29 Februarie 2004 15:48 |
Katryn
Boodskappe: 962
Geregistreer: Julie 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:55:21 +0200, "Elaine" wrote:
> Sien as daar vooroordeel is kan hulle kla en kan hulle met
> hierdie "die wêreld skuld ons iets" attitude deur die lewe gaan.
Klink bekend. ;-)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson [boodskap #90752 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90748] |
So, 29 Februarie 2004 17:59 |
Elaine
Boodskappe: 2948
Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Oe ja, "We were Soldiers" was baie goed. Nie eintlik 'n rol waarin ek
Gibson sou sien nie, maar nog steeds baie, baie goed. Die DVD het verlede
jaar uitgekom, ek dink die fliek het aan die einde van 2002 uitgekom.
E
"Katryn" wrote:
>
> Ek hou ook van hom. Weet nie of hy briljant is nie, maar ek is mal
> oor sy sin van humor, en dit lyk altyd of hy iets stouts gaan aanvang.
> Ek dink ook hy is erg sexy. ;-)
> 'n Fliek van hom wat ek ook baie geniet het was "When we were
> soldiers". So 2 of 3 jaar gelede? Het jy dit al gesien? Daardie
> tema musiek gee my elke keer rillings.
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mel Gibson se Jesus [boodskap #90761 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #90745] |
So, 29 Februarie 2004 20:26 |
$$$from...
Boodskappe: 12
Geregistreer: Februarie 2004
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Ek dink jy het die kat by die stert beet. Budda was 'n profeet wat die hele
besigheid begin het, ingeslote all die dinge wat jy hier noem. Dit is baie
soos die geloof van die Rooi Indiane in Amerika en die geloof van die
Aboriginals in Australia waar jy een word met you wereld. Hulle is die ouens
wat nie 'n muskiet sal skade aan doen nie. Die Lama spreek ook van moreele
sake wat nooit kan of sal verander nie, net soos in ander gelowe. Soos ek
gese het dat Jesus ons vry gestel het van die natuurlike geskiedenis in die
ou testament maar vir ons die nuwe (jood vry) toekoms gebring het wat
geestelik uitgespell word, maar deur baie nog natuurlik gesien word. Is dit
nie meer nodig om enige iemand se voete te was nie. Die koningkryk van God
is geestelik maar om dit verstaanbaar te maak kom die bybel in gelykennise
( stories, geskiedenis ).Die koningkryk van God is in jou. Lukas 17 vers 21.
Dit kan net geestelik wees nie natuurlik nie
"@rogers.com" wrote in message
news:snn0c.14086$sl.11455@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.c om...
>
> FRED" wrote
>
> Gelowe soos Budda en Muhammad gee wel
>> aan dat hulle profeete is en nie die Seun van God is nie, wat well die geval
>> van Jesus is
>
> Buddhisme is nie 'n "geloof" nie. Dit probeer nie
> mense bekeer nie. Dit het 'n psigologiese-fisiologiese
> strekking. Dit is myns insiens 'n poging meer as twee-
> duisend jaar gelede om vir mense die realiteit van
> relatiwiteit te laat verstaan. Maar as mens ernstig
> is oor die bereiking van 'n staat waar die ego uitge-
> blus is ( die saad het in die grond geval en gesterf
> in Christelike parlance) en mens leef in 'n staat waar
> "liefde" ( die Christelike maatstaf vir redding) alleen
> die dryfkrag is, dan is die yogas van die Boeddhiste
> 'n voortreflike hulpmiddel om hierdie doel te
> bereik. As jy deur na Christus se woorde te
> luister en sy voetstappe te volg hierdie pad kan
> loop, dan moedig die Dalai Lama jou aan om nie
> jou Christelike pad op te gee nie, maar dit baie
> baie ernstig op te neem. Maar dit sal moet insluit
> baie ure van op jou knieë deurbring, en baie
> voete van jou naaste wat jy sal moet was. Ook sal
> jy elke lewende ding, nie net mense nie, moet
> respekteer. Jy is nie eens veronderstel om 'n muskiet
> dood te slaan nie.
>
> Gloudina
>
|
|
|
|
| |
  |
Gaan na forum:
[ XML-voer ] [  ]
Tyd nou: Vr Apr 26 08:48:06 MGT 2024
|
Supertaal
Blog
Soek
Hulp
Lede
Registreer
Teken aan
Tuis
