'The Passion' & the tar baby

Jerusalem Post ^ | Feb. 28, 2004 | Jonathan Rosenblum

[Concerned]

I WROTE: "There should be absolutely ZERO reason to BLAME anybody!!! Isaiah 53:10 states VERY clearly: "Yet it was the LORD's will to crush Him and cause Him to suffer, and though the LORD makes His life a guilt offering..."

I ASKED: "Could someone...ANYONE...please point out exactly where that Scripture mentions that Jews are to be blamed for Jesus' death?"

DIALUP LLAMA RESPONDED: "Nowhere. If one group can be blamed for Jesus' death, then Christianity is short ciruited because it would make a lie of Jesus' words that "I lay down my life willingly and can take it up again." It would also mean that Jesus didn't suffer for the worlds' sins if Jesus was merely a good teacher who was killed by a more powerful rival religious group."

I AM RESPONDING BACK: BINGO!!!

I ADDED EARLIER: "As a Christian, I don't BLAME the Jews...I THANK the LORD!!! Jesus' death and resurrection are the BEST things that have EVER happened! And we should all be THANKFUL that God is so loving, thoughtful and full of grace that He provided a way back to Him."

DIALUP LLAMA RESPONDED: "Anyone who says the Gospel teaches that the Jews are to be blamed will eventually claim that Jesus was just a good teacher, not the savior. Check it out, the two beliefs go together like hand-in-glove."

I AM RESPONDING AGAIN: "I agree completely! See Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12---the general synopsis of "The Passion" movie. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John provide the details.

[Don Joe]

But some here might be anti-catholic.

I say "might be".

If you "might be" referring to me, you "might be" wrong, since I married into a large Catholic family, and, my mother, as a young child, spent some time in an orphanage, cared for by nuns, whom she treasured for all her living days.

[cyncooper]

No, I wasn't, and I haven't a clue why you would think so.

[Don Joe]

Pontius Pilate was the equivalent of today's pagan moral relativists.

A better analogy might be governors and presidents who weigh clemency decisions on the basis of public opinion rather than the actual merits of the case.

[cyncooper]

And btw, I when I refer to people, I address them directly.

Hint: My post was to veronica, whom I happen to admire for the most part, but I've encountered her on The Passion threads over the months.

[Don Joe]

No, I wasn't, and I haven't a clue why you would think so.

For two reasons. First, because you made the statement, and second, because I am (as far as I'm aware) the only one in the thread who related actual acts of persecution at the hands of Catholics.

[cyncooper]

I'm waiting for your apology and admission that you misunderstood me and took offense for something I did not say to you.

I've already said I was not referring to you.

[Don Joe]

And btw, I when I refer to people, I address them directly.

Except when making statements like, "But some here might be anti-catholic. ... I say "might be"? :)

[cyncooper]

Good grief, get over youself.

Do you not understand plain English or what? I've made several posts explaining, yet you prefer to play the martyr.

I was not referring to you, no matter how much you wish for it to be so.

[Don Joe]

I'm waiting for your apology and admission that you misunderstood me and took offense for something I did not say to you.

Patience is a virtue.

Good f'n grief.

You make veiled statements, and then wax indignant when someone wonders if you were talking about him? And then you've got the chutzpah to assert that "I when I refer to people, I address them directly"???

Let's strike a deal, shall we? You don't hold your breath waiting for an apology from me and I won't hold mine waiting for an apology from you.

Deal?

(Hint: take it. It won't get any better. :)

[cyncooper]

I said I was talking to veronica, and far from "veiled", I was plain spoken. What is so hard for you to understand?

You keep insisting I was referring to you for some reason, when I was not. Hardly indignant, just wondering why you do not accept my explanation that I was not referring to you and my subsequent amplification.

[Don Joe]

Good grief, get over youself.

Huh?

You keep asking questions, and when I answer them, I'm in need of getting over myself?

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Do you not understand plain English or what? I've made several posts explaining, yet you prefer to play the martyr.

GFYS *, dear.

I was not referring to you, no matter how much you wish for it to be so.

1. I didn't say you did. I ASKED if you did.
2. I accepted your explanation, yet you won't let it go.

Hmm...

Methinks the lady might be protesting too much.

I said might be.

* "F" = "Find." I suggest you FIND yourself. You seem quite lost...

[cyncooper]

Tis not I who is lost, it is plain to see. You flagged me assuming I was talking about you and from there it went. When I explained I was not, you did not acknowledge it or apologize for your faulty extrapolation, but began insults.

Give it up.

[Don Joe]

I said I was talking to veronica

Yes, you certainly did.

AFTER the fact.

and far from "veiled", I was plain spoken. What is so hard for you to understand?

Statements like, "But some here might be anti-catholic. ... I say 'might be'" are veiled statements in the common parlance. Why is that so hard for YOU to understand?

You keep insisting I was referring to you

No I don't. So you can politely retract that accusation, TUVM.

Hardly indignant, just wondering why you do not accept my explanation that I was not referring to you and my subsequent amplification.

There are none so blind as those who WILL not see. I accepted it. I confirmed that I accepted it. Yet, you continue to wax indignant that I did NOT accept it.

Get back with me when you can grasp these simple facts, OK?

[cyncooper]

LOL

[Don Joe]

Tis not I who is lost, it is plain to see. You flagged me assuming I was talking about you and from there it went. When I explained I was not, you did not acknowledge it or apologize for your faulty extrapolation, but began insults.

When you make veiled accusations, you should not be surprised if someone ASKS if you were accusing them. ASKING if YOU were making an accusation is NOT the same as MAKING an accusation. Good grief.

I have to wonder why you are acting so strangely about this. It's as if I struck a nerve by accident.

Give it up.

Get lost. I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with your sort.

[cyncooper]

Don Joe: My post was directly to a certain poster and was not veiled in the least.

You are brimming with insults and attacks.

Take a hike.

[cyncooper]

It's as if I struck a nerve by accident.

Actually, it is clear that you are the one who had a nerve struck somehow.

[ontos-on]

I also first heard the notion that the Jews might be responsible for Christ's death---from a Jew in college. Come to think of it, I have never heard anyone seriously claim that the Jews were responsible. It is only from the people who fear the charge, that we learn of the charge. It is a very odd situation.

[Burkeman1]

Perhaps, but that scene just sticks with me as being too much. Again- by the time he is nailed to the cross I was just relieved that he was not having his skin ripped off by two of the most maniacal evil brutes ever to appear on a movie screen. The length and brutality of the scourging scene almost seemed to take away from the pivotal crucifixtion scene in my judgement.