Raf

AH! Okay, now I get you. i'm going to go back to the verse about "the joy that was set before him" to see if it's talking only about obedience or of it's talking about Christ's own future. I suspect it's the latter. Either way, I'm humbled at the thought of his obedience, and I think it's right to call attention to it.

Ok, mj, here's what's confusing me... Jesus obviously knew the events of the end times. He predicted them and announced them. Whether he knew about this time period separating his time from the end times is a fair question, and honest Christians disagree. You seem to believe that he did not know about this "age of grace." Wierwille agreed with that. CES agrees with that. I'm not so sure of that myself, but I know plenty of other groups agree with that. But that's not the point I was making when I talked about "the joy that was set before him." Do you think I'm trying to say that Jesus knew about this present time and the rapture, etc? And the reason I ask is, I'm not sure I see the point you're raising. So please clarify.

oooh, look at the pretty little worm on that hook. Nah, I won't take it.

I guess I wasn't clear. I don't think anyone should feel guilty over the death of Christ. What he did was voluntary. As for what John S taught, I'm a little lost on what you're saying MJ. CES clearly believes and teaches that Jesus did not know about the rapture, but he obviously knew he would return in glory. That's all Old Testament stuff. If he didn't know that, goodness, how smart could he be? So yes, I think he did it because he was obedient, but he also did it knowing of a joyful future that included him in it. "For the joy that was set before him, he endured the cross."

I can name every character in Titanic. I can't name two characters in Gladiator. I like to call Titanic "the best badly written movie ever made." It's got two goals. One is to tell a believable love story. (F-). The other is to tell a story that takes the viewer from bow to stern and everywhere in between (A+). So even though we have to put up with "Jack, this is where we met," you have to admit this is one hell of an impressive piece of filmmaking. (That means it's a good popcorn movie, for those of you from Rio Linda, Palm Beach County, or the initials QQ). Gladiator had good fights. Umm. Okay.

I don't know what gave you the impression that I'm not a native English speaker, but for your information, it is my first language and also my college major. But go on, have some more rope. Easier to hang you that way. Really, QQ, I thought more of your sense of humor than that. But not to worry. From now on I'll use little words so you can keep up with me. It's called art the artist wants you to process the message without spelling it all out for you. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on August 09, 2003 at 2:04.]

Seriously? I don't get the question. Each individual sin we commit, we commit by our choice. But according to the Bible, the fact that we WILL sin is fairly well settled. I believe in the sacrifice of Christ. I believe in his sinless life and his atoning death. I believe in his resurrection and I hope for his return. The Bible never holds ANY group responsible for his death. His sacrifice was voluntary. He did that because he wanted to, for the joy that was set before him. It's not my fault he died. It's not my fault he suffered. Nor is it yours. It's not the Jews' fault and it's not the Romans. In the column chwester quotes at the start of this thread, Cal Thomas writes of a friend of his who turned to him and said, yeah, that could have been me in that crowd. Yep. I would have been in that crowd, cheering, yelling "crucify him," so convinced I was right that I would not have seen what a colossal mistake I was making. Do you ever stop to think of how horribly few people stood with him at the end? Oh, I want to think I'd have had the spiritual acuity and integrity to recognize who he was and stand with him at the end. Truth is, I would probably have denied him so many times I'd put Peter and Thomas to shame. And he went and died anyway. He gave me life anyway. I'm not responsible for Christ's death. Not even Biblically. Biblically, it's Adam's fault if anyone's. But Biblically, Jesus didn't HAVE to do it. He chose to. That I choose him is really a pittance in return. How remarkable that it's all he asks of me.

Well, I don't know about those verses, but we can't leave out... Blame Canada! Blame Canada! With all their hockey hullabaloo, and that xxxx Ann Murray too!

Don't worry, Excy, it wasn't you that killed Jesus. It was the fear in the heart and life of his mother. Oops. Sorry. Wrong kid.

First, the fact that you don't know the meaning of certain words does not make those words meaningless. It makes you unaware of their meaning. Second, what's with the personal attack, dummy?

Yo' Mama! Sorry, couldn't resist. Of course dialogue adds something. But when the artist makes a decision to pull dialogue from the understanding of the audience, it doesn't mean something's been taken away. It means he's appealing to other faculties of your mind. Your mind does have other faculties, doesn't it? Or do you need everything spelled out for you? Hey, I don't think those guys with the hammers and nails are terribly fond of that Y'shua character. -->

Ok, I see the subject line now. But you don't get that nifty window where you can refer to the original thread while composing your reply.

QQ, That's like a non-Italian speaker reading an untranslated script of La Boheme and saying, "Beautiful, huh?" The beauty is in the music and the performances, not merely in the language. The Passion seeks to transcend our inability to understand the words being spoken, communicating its message through powerful images and a story with which we are all familiar. You strike me as the kind of guy who would b-and moan about the script to a silent movie. Fascinating, huh?

How about some stuff, besides PFAL, that has not stood the test of time? The movies you look at today and think to yourself, I liked this? Gladiator, to me, is the most forgettable Best Picture winning movie of the last 25 years. And one of these days, hopefully soon, the Academy voters will have another opportunity to compare Saving Private Ryan (a magnificent film) to Shakespeare in Love (a passable movie) and recognize their crime against Spielberg.

Have you ever sat through an opera? I sat through Billy Budd, which is in English. Didn't understand a blooming word. The operatic style of singing often defies understanding simply as a matter of style. Oh, and by the way, my Spanish is so-so, which means I would probably understand if an Italian asked me how I'm doing and where the bathroom is, but would not get me through the opening aria of La Boheme. Point is, understanding what is sung is not a prerequisite for enjoying opera, just as I suspect will be the case with this movie. :)-->

Which of your favorite movies have stood the test of time, and which have not? And please, avoid some of the more obvious ones, like The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind and PLEASE GOD DON'T mention The Godfather. I'm looking for movies you liked that everyone knows, or not, but now, years later, you look back and you think, hey, this movie really... ROCKY: It's hard to see Rocky through the prism of Rocky IV and especially Rocky V. But damned if this isn't a chick flick in a lot of ways, isn't it? I mean, what are the chief attributes of this movie? It's sweet. UGH! Anything but that! But unlike every other Rocky movie, this first one was a great FILM. And speaking of Stallone: FIRST BLOOD: This movie kicks butt. I mean, this is a terrific movie. One long action scene. This was, of course, before Rambo became a cartoon character (literally and figuratively). SCREAM: Still clever. Still hip. Still scary. AIRPLANE! Will never, ever, ever stop being funny. On the other hand... RETURN OF THE JEDI: a.k.a. the Muppet Movie 3. This was the beginning of the end of the Star Wars saga. Yes, it still had enough juice in it to make the grade, but isn't that scene between Luke and Leia in the woods a tad pathetic. "My father has it. I have it. And,... my sister has it. Yes, Leia, it's you." Who writes this crap? WILLY WONKA: I'll say it. This movie SUCKED. It's one big long headache of a movie and I hated every, do you hear me, every single character. So there!

The way I see it, if Gibson, an English speaker, is making this movie with an English speaking audience in mind, then he has artistic and personal reasons for not using subtitles. I can sit through La Boheme without English subtitles. I can surely sit through The Passion.

They've made the subtitles. Gibson hasn't made up his mind whether or not to use them. He's currently leaning against it, last I checked anyway.

i've never seen a thread where you can add a subject line to replies. Even in this thread, the first two replies have subject lines, so this thread should allow it, right? Well, it don't. Is it limited to moderators?

The glasses hurt. The effects were disappointing. There was no plot. Nothing made me smile. Nothing made me laugh. The closest thing to fun was a "beat me over the head with a stick" parallel to The Matrix. But even that lost its luster after the 31st or 32nd reference. (I did half expect to see Keanu Reeves pop in and say "woah.") A real yawner.

Finally got around to seeing this the other day. What fun!

NNnnnnnnnnnnnOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! It Just Won't Die!!!!!!

I don't think anything could ever stop Mike from liking himself. :)-->

Actually, Mike, most journalists have the same problem with the word basically, which is basically overused and basically can be eliminated from any sentence without altering the basic meaning of the sentence.

I remember that too.