cwsox

thank you for emntioning the graet Bible scholar Crossan - your summary of his writings is excellent indeed and that is what I believe it was Rome that killed Jesus Rome When the 2nd generation Christians wanted to be recognised by Rome and after Rome had destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD the Jews were made scapegoats to absolve Rome The conflict that killed Jesus was to whom is highest allegiance owed: Rome, Ceasar, OR God. Render to Ceasar... render to God... Because Ceasar literaly claimed to be the Son of God, Jesus had to go. And the Romans did it in about 30 CE (aka 30 AD). After 70 AD - when the Gospels were written - it was prudent to blame someone other than Rome. And so it happened. But it is still in the accounts - the place where the phgrase "you are no friend of Ceasar" and "we have no king but Ceasar" are Roman words, not Jewish words - and that is why Rome killed Jesus.

good question and the answer is of coiurse but be honest in advertizing

well said - I will also need to agree to disagree with my good friend CubKilla under Roman law - and it was irrelevant who did it because of the atonement requirements of the action however it was almost 2000 years and people still blame and hate the Jews today for an event that happened all that time ago - the blood guilt - there are ways to tell the story without inferring "the Jews" killed Jesus and there are ways of telling it in a antiSemitic hate version and by all accouin ts of the script Gibson has gone for the latter way which is his andf his father's long held personal theology but this is being peddled as if it were "just facts" when it has a particular interpretation that I find theologically and hsitorically very questionable and not supported if a prson sees it with discernemtn, then there is no problem but people seeing it as "just facts" that is the problem the 4 Gospels by the way diverge tremendously on what happened that Thursday and Friday - there is no one "historical" account possible from the Bible - the fact that this movie is billed as that is the first thing that makes it ludsicrous - lay out your Passion stories from all 4 Gospels and see how they all factually conflict at some major points. Which is also to say I deeply believe in the reality of Calvary but to draw out one account and say "this is what happened" is an absurdity and in Gibson's case, where done to make money is also done to push the unique theological views of the anti Vatican 2 chrch body to which he belongs which rejects the Roman Church's teachings on Jewish "responsibility" to the point that it believes the blood guilt is still there - go back and read my first post which includes the name of the antiSemitic visionary they follow ass revelation theologically, PA said it a long time ago in this thread - we all killed Christ. Unless we see ourselves as the Christ killers, then Calvary means nothing. Christ dfied because of the sin of all of us. To me to say that "so and so" killed Christ is theologically wrong and has led to hate and Holocaust in our human experience.

I rather love it myself - it is so bizarre but damn it I remember the name of quizno subs and actually wnat to try one!

I missed it too the first time around where is Israel4Life when we need him?

good point there Apu !!!!!

a great analogy with "CSI" the question of who that man was and what happened there - as you say, that would be worthwhile I hope my other post was written well enough to be understood by readers as my agreeing with you on things Mr Eye, I love you always! And whether one is Catholic or not, it is a great curiousity that the pr for this movie has claimed the Pope's endorsement when the Vatican vehemently denies the Pope doing so - the pre release press campaign has been one of the most curious in history, and perhaps most effective but I should probably back off all the way since I do not want Mel ripping my intestines out and putting them on a stick or killing my dog - comments he made about Frank Rich in an interview to the New Yorker which shows how much the mesage of the Gospel has influenced the course of Gibson's life when he was not flashing his naked butt in film after film

my recollection is that he was already divorced when he and Teresa Heinz hooked up - I could be wrong but that is my recollection are you against divorced people as president? Before you answer, remember Reagan was having an affair with Nancy Davis while still married to Jane Wyman and Reagan remains our only divorced president. To me, what Reagan did was not a reflection on his qualification as president nor was Clinton's daillance but to attack Kerry, you better be prepared to spit on and attack Reagan - it needs to be appllied to all sides. just saying

PA, not you in general! as a specific event in a place in time that was performed by the Romans, the crucifixion of Jesus was of course a theological and salvific necessity and is understood to have been done in its real sense by all of us as it was for th atonement of the sin of all of us and that is where I read you as being very much - the problem is that some people from the beginning of the Church have used the event as a way of blood guilt to lay upon the Jewish people - millenia of history have shown that - pogroms almost always broke out in Europe, where they did, around Holy Week and the general antiSemitism always began with "they killed Jesus didn't they" as if bigotry or killing against/of Jews culminating in the Holocaust was a proper response to Calvary that the Gibson family has the views it has and has made a movie which the script - and all I spoke of was the script which has been available - repeats all that blood guilt stuff, then that is worthy of comment interesting that Gibson has screened his movie only for evangelical and conservative Catholic groups - he has refused screenings for seminary (Christian and Jewish( faculties, the National Council of Churches, Jewish groups, Jewish religious organizations) - by billing himself as a martyr to "the liberals" and "political correctness" has been a great marketing ploy and that very approach to me bears out the deep concerns of course since Mel wants to rip out the intestines (little too much Braveheart, there, Mel!) of his critics, we need to be very careful in criticizing him! a lot of my dear clergy friends in my community are buying tickets by the score for their church members to see it as a "witness to Christ against the antGospel attackers of this dear Christian man and his wonderful movie" - this is the shrewdist marketing campaign that I have ever seen - and my friends are convinced that any criticism of the script or the marketing campaign or the film's maker is against Jesus - what does one say, I think they are not looking at the known facts, they think I am wrong because I am so "liberal", and we love each other and work for good together in other ways my comment that those churches should repent was a little over the top and I would have had a better post had I not stated that and I do withdraw that statement -

Mel Gibson is a member of groups that reject Vatican II very much including the reason that Vatican II removed the condemnation of Jewish people for killing Jesus. Yes, Mel Gibson belongs to anti-Semitic groups. Gibson and his father are prominent in small hate church bodies which describe their selves as "catholic" but not recognizing any Pope anymore since the papal withdrawal of the condemnation of the Jews - the heart of millenia of anti Semitism. Frank Rich, a New York Times critic, wrote a column last August critical of Gibson's upcoming movie. Gibson's response, in the September 15, 2003 New Yorker was to say of Rich, "I want to kill him, I want his intestines on a stick... I want to kill his dog." Father John Pawlikowski, a man I know, professor of social ethics at Chicago's Catholic Theological Union, a man who works closely with Jewish-Christian dialogue following the Holocaust, has termed the script of the movie "one of the worst things we'd seen in 25 years." That is in the 8 February 2004 Chicago Tribune. I would not consider going to see this anti-Semitic filth under any circumstances. Gibson has lied about taking out anti-Semitic lines of dialogue, saying there were taken out which they were but then put back in. And his script is based on the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, not a Biblical scholar but a fierce anti-Semite with fevered visions of stigmata and crucifixion and how she saw it happen in her vision. Support this if you must, but consider what you are supporting - a new however artistic expression of hate that is even more sick because it uses the Passion story to bring us back to anti-Semitism in the guise of Church teaching. He will reap millions for getting churches to sell tickets to his movie. Those churches should repent.

Oh I want to see that ad!

Rex, Rex, Rex, Rex, if you are going to be a voice of sanity you may get banned...

thanks for the laugh of the day! too bad its true on the front end and I am very thankful for the second part of that

what a mind you must have to have that pop in!!!!! what a name from the past! memory rush not taking over

not Frank's fault at all on Mags GIDP, nor Manuel. How could it be Manuel's fault? Mags swings his own bat. I have merged this with the prior thread so we don't have to repeat everything

she is hot always has been Nancy and I go way back - she and I were graduated from the same college and she is best friends with my cousin back in 1971 when she started in a shack in the bleachers I have a custom of seeing her as often as possible when at the park Nancy rocks!

asking for facts is what a Democrat does I simply asked you can't explain something so you respond with trash talk, and yes, that will always be my reaction - to look for reality you can't handle the truth it is the ardent republicans who spin fastasy as their own imagined reality sorry I offended you a very legitimate question that fact-checks the baseless accusation

explain why Nixon's justice department never charged him - becuase it is bullshiut, Nuke, bullshirt he dissented big time against the war. Beyond that, this whole treason thing is bulls***.

drudge report - now there is a reliable, factual source for anything

I have never heard of him which doesn't mean a thing. If this book is so accurate, and I am waiting still for the exact charges that have been made in that book and such proof because saying "so and so wrote this" does not mean that is what was said - I do work in a law office - but again if this book is not the ravings of a right wing luntaic, why was Kerry never charged and why has POW McCain been so close to Kerry - he after all had a lot at stake there. The reality is that some of us are old en ough to remember John Kerry's testimony to Congress and his other activities. That is one reason I know these accusations are bulls***. Others reasons are, Kerry was very visible - we would all know if had had said anything remotely, remotely close to these lies, nuke, and the Nixon Justice Department would have nailed his ass if anything remotely, remotely close to these lies were so - and John McCain, who lived in the Hanoi Hilton, is vberyu close to McCain and has broken party ranks on Kerry's behalf and I will trust John McCain's word as a POW over any bulls*** that I know never happened. Don't like a guy or his politics is one thing. False accusations of treason are something else.

prove that one - you damn well need to prove he said those things and remember that treason is a legal offense, a constitutional matter, and after you prove that Kerry ever said what you have accused him of, you damn well better be able to expalin why he was never charged under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1 or Bush 2 adminsitrations since I presume you will say Carter and Clionton let him of. And then you damn well might explain why Kerry's closest friend in the Senate, John MvcCain, has broken party lines in the past to support Kerry you have gone over the edge on this one

Nuke, your considering dissent againt the Vietnam War or any war with treason, I suggest you read the US Constitution again. And for Bush? He only got into the national guard because strings were pulled for the son of a US Congressman and grandson of a Senator. If he had been anyone else, he would have been drafted. But influence allowed strings to be pulled for Bush to evade the draft. Both father and son Bush have admitted that strings were pulled to get Bush into the Guard ahead of everyone on the list - they just deny "knowing" about it "aherad of time." Just as Cheney was a draft evader - he said and has always said that he was doing more important things than serving in the military. He used every legal loophole to evade the draft. Your calling out a veteran and praising draft evaders and draft dogers is simply incredible to me.

Kerry's record of treason? Treason? I am having a hard time with that word. As far as the Washington Times goes, the paper is a Moonie operation and I don't trust the Moonies on anything.

Bush is total bulls***. Sunday he says he will make all records available on the questionable mising year. Monday the White House says there are no more records. Tuesday the White House releases more records which answer nothing, only that Bush got paid a few times and had dental work (done free at taxpayers expenses). Wednesday the White House says they will release nothing more. Days of our lives. Every day a new installment in "The BU stands for BUll and the SH stands for s***."

this is good news - she is a real Sox fan and is our link to our team since 1970 - I agree that she should be allowed to play more