Full version
As far as these kinds of discussions go, one of my favorite passages is from Eusebius, who records something written by St. Melito of Sardis (d. 180):rakovsky said:
It's part of the National Geographic Lost Mysteries of the Bible series:rakovsky said:
The movie then at 10:30 shows a painting of Jesus on the cross with his side pierced and what looks like people putting their faces next to and into his bleeding wounds in his side and right hand.
Were Christ's words shocking just for the sake of it? Why then use such language?rakovsky said:
Joseph Smith was his name, and the long con was his game.rakovsky said:
Love all of this.Asteriktos said:
I think the movie was suggesting to the audience that the Jews and many initial followers had difficulty with Jesus' teaching that he would get killed and resurrect. They didn't understand what this meant (a literal death and literal resurrection, not just "spiritually" dying alone) and were expecting a victorious rebel king leader as a Messiah.Hawkeye said:
I guess MacArthur would answer that the crowd was wrong to walk away and that they instead should have interpreted Jesus's words in a nonliteral, inoffensive way.Volnutt said:
I'm sure he would. But the Messiah being crucified for their sins would probably have been almost as offensive to them as eating flesh and blood would be, so MacArthur is a bit naive to think that therefore we should take the Eucharist as nonliteral. It's almost a non-sequitur, really.rakovsky said:
Your analysis is so right. So much of the later Reformation makes little sense of itself. It's a collection of reactions and assumptions. I suppose this is true of most movements, over time.Volnutt said:
rakovsky said:
Reviewers said that this scene in the movie has a strong impact. It comes right after some medieval painted actors on a stage perform a ballad about a black one on a beach, and forms a very serious contrast. One review noted that self-flagellation was not a trait particularly noted about medieval Sweden, while a movie critic said that the scene with the penitents self-flagellating was an objection by Bergman against his strict religious (Lutheran) upbringing, as was the cruel image of the bishop in Fanny and Alexander.
http://www.filmsufi.com/2013/08/the-seventh-seal-ingmar-bergman-1957.html
http://www.jamuura.com/blog/the-seventh-seal-bergmans-existential-masterpiece-on-the-battle-between-life-death/
http://mymeaningfulmovies.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-seventh-seal.htmlBergman seems to be offering that one possibility for the existence of religion is that people turn to it when they are scared. The knight says we “make an idol of our fear, and call it God.” The church artist says people need a reason to explain the devastation of the plague, so the justify it by calling it a punishment from God for the evil ways of humans. Indeed, later in the movie, we have a procession of people whipping each other, subduing the flesh as it were, as penance for sinful ways. A priest among these penitents frightens the townspeople by saying that they will all die of the Black Plague. Instead of rejoicing at life, he talks of a pregnant woman being full of a lust for life as being foolish, since life is short. From this viewpoint, life is not meant to be enjoyed, and one should worry about the immortal soul that can be tortured in hell if it leaves this world in a sinful state. When the procession members march out of the town, we see them disappear, suggesting they lived their lives as if already dead.
...
The irrational fear of death leads to superstitious practices that justify the tormenting of others. Block and his squire come across soldiers who have tortured and are ready to burn at the stake a woman they say has consorted with the devil. They blame her for bringing about the plague. When Jof is in a tavern he jokes about the impending doom, and is immediately considered suspicious for his lack of fear. In contrast to those whose belief in religion is based on fear, the knight Block wants his faith built on a basis of true belief. When he looks at a statue of a crucified Jesus, the knight’s tormented soul is mirrored in the agony on the sculptured face of Christ.
...
Without actual knowledge of God, not just faith that he may exist, he is left in a state of “preposterous horror.” He can’t face death “knowing everything’s nothingness.” But, that is exactly what he is doing, because the priest turns out to be a masquerading Death (the irony then is that the church and its priests are implied as fake purveyors of truth).
https://oca.org/saints/lives/2010/11/21/103357-the-entry-of-the-most-holy-mother-of-god-into-the-temple
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormition_of_the_Mother_of_God
Gosh I would live to find and read this really in Chrysostom.rakovsky said:
So now even our religious academics are sitting at the feet of the Jews. I hate fads in academia, and "theology" is like any other humanity at this point -- let no one think it is not.
The video at 33:00 also portrays Paul's eating with gentiles as if the gentiles were converts. The incident is important because the apostles tell Peter not to eat with Paul's gentile friends. Do you agree that the apostles were warning Peter not to eat with gentile Christians, or was that just a ban against eating with gentile nonChristian acquaintances of Paul?
I think it's a bit of "six of one half dozen of the other," isn't it? The purpose of the tongues was so everyone could understand each other. What we might hear if we could have a "view from nowhere" copy of what was coming out of their mouths seems kind of a pointless question to me.rakovsky said:
How could the Gentiles be non-Christians when this incident is what ultimately lead to the Council of Jerusalem's letter to Gentile converts?rakovsky said:
Where in the chronology was this supposed to be taking place? According to Acts members of the Church, including Peter, were uncertain about how Christians should act among/towards gentiles, which was the reason that God gave Peter visions and sent him on a conversion mission (Acts 10-11). After that there seemed to be some within the body of believers who weren't on board or needed clarification (Acts 15), and even later these kinds of things were still causing tension (Acts 21:17-26). It seems that the real pivot point for all this was in Acts 10-11 though; St. Paul and some others had been dealing with Gentiles before that, but that's the point in the story when God makes sure the other apostles are on board (even if some "believers" remained in need of convincing or correction).rakovsky said: