Was he? John 16:32 says different. I don't see any assertation that he was there... only that he testified about what happened. Maybe, I missed the verse.
The Passion Of Christ
- Thread starter GDI
- Start date
Please register or login
boomx5
Contributor
If Jesus was alone, then who was he talking too in John 16:32?
It was a prophecy... He would be alone.
Actually he was talking to his disciples. He predicted that they would all leave him and that he would go through this alone.
UP just pointed out John 19:26, which puts John at the cross. But we still don't know how much of the scourging he witnessed.
UP just pointed out John 19:26, which puts John at the cross. But we still don't know how much of the scourging he witnessed.
boomx5
Contributor
NetDoc:
my sarcasm was a little dry Pete. The text is very clear who Jesus is talking too there. At the time I was typing, talking on the phone and watching my kids fight all at the same time and forgot to put in a smiley.
Ok, Indigoblue, just had to pull you up on this one a little, Mel Gibson is what one might term a conservative RC, that is the version of RC he believes in doesn't recognize the pope, i am not sure if he believes in the other books that were put into the Bible by the RC's or not though. One of the biggies of the RC faith is the belief that Peter was in Rome and started the Rc church (upon this stone i will build my church) and that the lineage of the popes is descended/passed on (not by blood) from him on down. I dont see how Mel could be RC IF he doesnt consider the pope, but then again should he really as there is no scriptural evidence about that.IndigoBlue:
Even though baptism is not easily translated, there are descriptions of it in the NT that all describe full immersion in water after a confession of faith(mostly rivers or seas from what i recall), some people have chosen to change that to any water being dabbed on the head to make things more convenient (even on children who cant confess faith yet), but when someone says baptism, that is instant what i think of as it is described.Netdoc:
As for those passages snowbear pulled up, the meaning is pretty much the same in all of them, you get the idea from that passage that you should try to be spiritually minded about things and use the teachings found and learned from the Bible (God's divine word) to battle against the opinions of those who doubt your faith and God's teachings which you believe.
I could pull more stuff and really go conservatively religious, but dont want to move beyond these few points to avoid conflicts which always come from such discussions.
We are planning to go and see it once the lines calm down at the theatres. I also heard a lot beforehand about it how he had researched things, yes he probably has embellished beyond the written Word, but he has done so to show what wasnt written, but is documented about such treatments to other prisoners at the time under the same Roman government. It is artistic license, whilst i wouldnt cannonise his film i would use it as an aid to visualise what is written. If he stuck regidly to what John wrote then the film might only be about 30 mins long at most. John also didnt need to be alongside Jesus to give testimony the Holy Spirit was in him and commanded him to write what God and Jesus witnessed at the time, ie the Spirit working through John to produce God's Word.
And the lesson is yours...
I really try not to push my beliefs on others, some people are happy the way they are, the way they believe or non-believe, its their life and eternity, ask me questions and i will be more than willing to respond, point out something that isnt wholy true and i will try to correct (if i am any more able to correct) or apply what little knowledge i have to the discussion.
TostitoBandito
Contributor
Walter:
Don't assume the Bible accurately shows what happened. The Bible is mostly fiction. Sure, there are some references to actual places, people, and historical events, but many of the stories were fabricated or embellished to send a message or teach a lesson. I think being retranslated a number of times has probably made it even worse. Anyways, the Bible is a great book for teaching basic moral values, but it shouldn't be looked on as an entirely accurate historical text. It's when people take this stuff WAY too seriously that we run into conflicts, wars, and death.
UWSojourner
Contributor
TostitoBandito:
dems' some fighten' words :nonono:. As I see it, that statement is complete fiction, and unsupportable by history.
It goes way beyond a "few historical figures." And if the goal was just to teach good morals, then there was no reason other religions in the region could not do that. Read the words - the people writing them were fully convinced a man had risen from the dead. If true, as they believed it was, its the greatest story ever told. If not true, its neither moral nor compelling.
TostitoBandito
Contributor
UWSojourner:
Ok, mostly was probably the wrong word to use. Many actual historical events and people are described in the Bible. There are also parts that have little or no historical evidence. It is a collection of short stories and accounts from many people over many years and has been revised and translated many times. Bah forget it, I'm never gonna win this argument, at least not before I get flamed off of this board.
Similar threads
