"The Messiah" (Iranian film) Jesus

Hello Sparten

Originally posted by Spartakus Originally posted by Akolouthos   Nope. Just "mistaken", sans the quotes. If I were to include the punctuation it would signify that I did not hold to the belief that I stated, which I do. I am well aware that many Muslim's criticize Christians for our "mistaken" understanding of the nature and role of Jesus.   -Akolouthos You did not say , according to me or according to Christianity.

No I did not. Instead, I spoke as a Christian. Essentially it's a statement of an opinion which I believe to be true; if I had put the word "mistaken" in quotes, it would convey something other than that which was my intention.

-Akolouthos

Originally posted by Spartakus Originally posted by Akolouthos No I did not. Instead, I spoke as a Christian. Essentially it's a statement of an opinion which I believe to be true; if I had put the word "mistaken" in quotes, it would convey something other than that which was my intention. -Akolouthos You said : Interesting. It shouldn't be all that much of a surprise. One of the primary criticisms levelled by the Church at Islam has always been the mistaken Muslim interpretation of the nature and role of Jesus. I'd actually be very interested to see this movie sometime. Mistaken according to whom? As a believer you should know that what you consider mistaken ,for another it is not. And if it is according to the Church, according to which Church?

Edited by Akolouthos - 31-May-2008 at 17:45

Originally posted by Spartakus I quoted your very first answer in this topic.

But you apparently either didn't read or failed to understand my explanation.

My point is that you needed to state the source for the word mistaken. The way you wrote it was as if it was a widely accepted truth, but you did not mention for whom.That's all.

Sorry, but I think I will continue writing my posts in the context of an academic forum where adults can understand things without my having to hold their hands through the process.

I'll try once more, Sparty; once more:

The initial post stated something that I hold to be true. There was no need to put the word "mistaken" in quotes; to do so would have implied that I did not hold the statement to be true (see my response to your first objection for an example). Whether or not you hold the statement to be true (and I can only suppose that you don't, for we have already shown that you don't have a semantic leg to stand on) is irrelevant to how I chose to phrase it. And it is a widely accepted truth within the context of Orthodox Christianity; knowing me, you should have simply inferred this -- as I know arch.buff and assume everyone else did. I have no need to identify myself and provide an intellectual profile every time I post on this forum -- although I do often do this to set the context when I start a thread. If you wish to get a better understanding of my thoughts -- or check a "source", as you call it -- either read my old posts or check the relevant thread on the Philosophy and Theology subforum. The point is, we all know each other on this forum, or are in the process of getting to know each other if you wish to clarify every post you make with an explanation of your personal beliefs, feel free.

There. I really cannot state it any more simply than that.

-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 01-Jun-2008 at 01:05

Its true Sparto. If you hold a mistaken belief in the divinity of Christ then it is expect that you would consider that others are mistaken, and don't need to reference it (actually you are referencing yourself).

So when you want to say for whom, it is for Ako. Just as my first usage of the world mistaken in this post is for me.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Its true Sparto. If you hold a mistaken belief in the divinity of Christ then it is expect that you would consider that others are mistaken, and don't need to reference it (actually you are referencing yourself). So when you want to say for whom, it is for Ako. Just as my first usage of the world mistaken in this post is for me.

Edited by Akolouthos - 01-Jun-2008 at 17:46

back to the iranian movie, i remember iranians made a movie about prophet Josef long time ago.

Again, I am making a post to ghosts! But, what the heck, at least I will fell better by doing it rather than not doing it, etc. chuckle!

There exist numerous versions of the life and death of the man who was to be called "Emanuel!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel

Some history revisionists have even proposed that he is basically a creation, with the same thing also applied to Muhammed / Muhammad, etc.

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Muhammad

"Muhammad has 18 variant forms: Hamid, Hammad, Mahmood, Mahmoud, Mahmud, Mahomet, Mehmet, Mehmood, Mehmoud, Mehmud, Mihammad, Mohamad, Mohamed, Mohamet, Mohammad, Mohammed, Muhamet and Muhammed."

One might well notice that with the elimination of the doubled "m", both names contain only seven letters! I would assume that numerologists have made many conclusions based upon this accidental fact? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

But, a real question to be asked is; "Could any of you expect a movie producer in Iran to ever make a movie about the "Prophet Mohamet" depicting him in any manner, and especially promoting something that is not recognized as truth by the vast number of the adherents of the religion?

What if some American movie was made in the same manner?

It seems that most all of the above respondents to the original post blithly ignore the greater problem that would ensue if the movie was aimed at Islam, rather than at Christianity!

Oh, the riots that would occur! The call to "Jihad" would be sung from thousands of Minarets (Lighthouses!) Death threats whoul be issued for all of those responsible for the film, etc., theaters would be burned to the ground, etc. Large and mean demonstrations would be made in front of Western missons in Arabic or Moslem states! Gnashing of teeth would be heard!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

I do not think my above words are excessive!

But, what was the response by Christians to the above movie?

Mild distain? Some name calling? Mostly silence?

Surely a strange difference?

Or, do some of you disagree?

Regards,