The controversy surrounding The Passion of the Christ

Jabbadabbado,

Have you ever thought about reading the Bible to find the real source of Christianity?

Maybe you can ask your Catholic wife what "heresy" means?

 

I've read the King James version of the bible cover to cover more than once. It ranks up there with the works of Shakespeare as a central text of English literature. It's definitely one of those books I'd like to have with me if I were capsized on an island. But I don't think it has much to say about its own historical accuracy, any more than novels such as "The Girl with the Pearl Earring" or "I Claudius" prove their own historicity.

I'm not sure what the comment about my wife is supposed to mean.

 

"Heck, doesn't the fact that Christians so heavily rely on Jewish Scripture -- holding in such high esteem Jews like Abraham, Joshua, Moses, Ruth, Esther, David, and Solomon -- indicate that maybe, just maybe, Christianity isn't rooted in anti-Semitism? "

Actually, Bubba, none of these figures you named were Jewish. They were all Hebrew. The identification of Jews or Judaism did not occur until after Solomon and after the destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Samaria. Before that destruction, there were 12 tribes: 10 northern tribes that made up the kingdom of Samaria and 2 southern tribes (Judah and Benjamin, which at some point enmashed into one) that made up the southern kingdom of Israel. After the northern kingdom was destroyed, the 10 northern tribes disappeared. This made Judah (Benjamin had merged into it) was now the only tribe left. Their people became known as Judaens (or Jews for short) and their religion was identified as Judaism.

Well I guess you could consider David and Solomon Jews because they were both of the tribe of Judah. But the concept and identification of Jews or Judaism did not exist until after their deaths.

 

Jabba:

"You don't seem to live by that rather obvious conclusion. Why not?"

This is an easy one. I grew up with close ties to the southern Baptist and Methodist churches. My wife is Catholic. I think I know these traditions fairly well. Anti-semitism was rampant in the Baptist church of my childhood.

You're being a hypocrite. Christians -- particularly early Christians -- grew up with close ties to Judaism. Even now, Christians consider Jewish scripture to be part of God's revealed message to man.

And yet, you assert that only Jews can criticize Jews.

If Christianity's "close ties" to Judaism can't permit some criticism of Jews, your "close ties" to Christianity should not permit your criticism of Christians.

Simple as that.


I've more to say about your so-called proof of the pagan roots of Christianity, but I haven't the time at the moment. Since you made us wait so long for your proof, I'll assume you'll have no problem waiting a day or two for a rebuttal.


EDIT: Whether the figures I mentioned were known then as Hebrews or Jews is quite irrelevant, SLR. They are all heroes and heroines of Jewish scripture, and part of the grand tapestry of God's covenant with Abraham and his people -- regardless of what that people was called and when.

 

I know, Bubba, I just felt like being nitpicky. I meant no offense.

 

"Even now, Christians consider Jewish scripture to be part of God's revealed message to man."


That's fine as long as you're not referring to the Old Testament as Jewish scripture. There is not a one-to-one correspondence. They are separated by centuries of redaction and vagaries of different translations as well as the inclusion of different content. The King James version of the Old Testament is Christian scripture, not Jewish scripture.

If you're saying that Christians accept the actual Jewish holy texts as the word of God, then that's another matter. But Judaism does not return the compliment of early Christianity's adoption of Judaism as its predecessor religion (by way of concealing its pagan roots).

 

Jabba I thought Jews do use the King James Version, being it is one of the few versions translated into English. Most Jews cannot read and understand Hebrew. Therefore if they want to read the bible in a language they understand, they go to the King James Version or another alternative that is translated to English. All "Jewish" versions of the bible are in Hebrew.

 

Their translation is the same. I've compared them, a jewish friend of mine from long back had all the texts and I looked through them. Isaiah 53 reads the same, so does the book of genesis. Everything does.

Christianity had it's roots in Judaism, not paganism. Not the doctrine itself. I don't consider pagan symbolism and/or adopted holidays roots exactly. A root is something that something is founded on. And so since it was founded on the backbone of Hebrew/Jewish Judaism, those are it's roots.

 

My point is that the King James version is not Jewish scripture. Only the Hebrew-language text has that distinction. The JPS English-Hebrew Tanakh, for example, is considered a highly authoritative English translation of the Masoretic Hebrew text. It is quite distinct from the King James OT.

 

FYI, Jabba, I still intend to give your assertions their due reply, but I have bigger proverbial fish to fry right now. The reply is mostly in my head already, but I want to take the time to craft a complete response. I don't have that time right now.


BTW, it looks like The Passion will be the #1 movie again this weekend.