Did Cops Cover-Up Mel Gibson Tirade?

I've heard the reasoning behind not having Jesus on the cross is that He no longer is paying for our sins and the price has been paid. But the reasoning of Jesus on the cross is that that is the price He paid.

I can see both sides.

 

both have their sense of meaning. potatoe, potatah. that's the kind of mindless stuff the church chose to divide over for centuries. what a waste of energy.

 

But all people in the movie, other than the Romans, were Jews - including Jesus. There were some good ones and some not so good ones. Most, but not all, of the religous leaders were the bad ones.

I'm not trying to defend Mel. I believe that if that came of him while drunk, it was in him before he was drunk. However, we are all sinners and I will try hard not to cast stones. But the movie overall was a good reminder, for me, of the price He paid.

 

100% agree. And just imagine that to the first century, having a cross (with or without Jesus) around your neck, would be like having a gas chamber or electric chair (with or without Jesus) around your neck. Now the cross is looked upon as a good thing and something of protection.

Symbols and reminders.

 

Absolutely, no crucifix in the sanctuary because Jesus was only crucified once. Nothing against Roman Cathloics, but they crucify him every Sunday, or every eucharist. Only once did he need to die for our sins and be resurrected--just like we recognize one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

However, the Episcopal church uses imagery of the lamb, cross and crown quite often. But the church's "seal" is a shield with a red cross and smaller crosses arranged in an "x" in the top left hand quadrant for the greek letter Chi--Christ, Christus Rexus...etc

I know what you mean about the "mindless" divisions that the holy catholic(as in univerasl) church has fought over for years. The Episcopal Church of America is going through it right now. That said, I'm glad that we are fighting and struggling over. If we don't wrestle with these issue and address them from the closest Christ-like standpoint that we can, who will?

 

i don't think issues like whether we should have a cross in our church with jesus on it or not is worth dealing with. the dogmatism that has separated Christians is so loud it's deafening. on issues like baptism and communion the church has lost the entire meaning of these sacraments splitting over who is doing it right and who is doing it wrong. in Isaiah God says true religion is taking care of widows and orphans. the church spends more resources and energy fighting these internal battles and camping out on who is right and who is wrong than truly following Christ, in my view.

 

I'm looking for a church that has the cross with a DVD of The Passion of the Christ nailed to it.

 

I think that's almost funny, but do you think it's funny and why?

 

Humor is best not really disected too much. But it wasn't all that funny to begin with so I don't mind.

With all the talk about his movie and how real or real of a representation it was to begin with, that helps set the environment for the joke. Of course add in that the whole thread was started to be about Mel Gibson, who is openly very Catholic, and religious. Then finally I agree with Mad Max about what is or isn't on the crucifix is a very dogmatic and minor thing, that shouldn't really be focused on when compared to Jesus' larger message. So it was a bit of satire of that as well. There may also be a little bit of satire at Gibson's choosing to cast himself in super heroic roles like William Wallace and The Patriot.

Then finally it makes little enough sense to throw in an element of the absurd.

Mostly I didn't really think about it. It popped into my head, and I posted it. I thought I would let people make whatever they wanted out of it. But since you asked their is my analysis.

 

Yea, I had the same rationale on why I called Lebanon as a "w**** host", when my mind was working towards the reference of Hezbollah as the actual w****, or "w**** of babylon" if you want to name knicks, "knickerbockers"...I just wanted to demonstrate to Sishir if he reads this that it is easy to simply "ask"...FB, you seem to be doing a better job of being fair on the issues, that is my subjective opinion, but thought I'd let you know...

Now if you can show some humor, you'd be rennaissance

 

But then what makes Christ special? Was he just wise and nothing else? What seperates him from the common man? What makes his death different for many Christians and Catholics, then that of Spicolli from Fast Times?

I also think Gibson did a good job of tying in different points from Christ's life as viewed through the lens of the Passion, scenes from his youth, his message, etc. The first part of the movie was like the first 12 lines of a Shakespearean Sonnet, only to resolved in a terse couplet such as was done showing him rising with a glorified body. Stylistically I thought the contrast was well done and made the scope of the movie move outwards, towards thoughts of the after life.

As for all those ready to hang Gibson for his comments, he has apologized and said they were dispicable. He obviously let out a side of himself he doesn't like and has been working to correct.

As far as the movie being anti-semetic, I think the point was supposed to be we all have our spiritual beginnings with the Jews and we all, Peter, Pontius, and the Jews, turned our back on him.

 

Of course his death on the cross was important but arguing over whether the cross has the image of him there or whether it is bare isn't worth all that much when there is so much more to focus on.

What makes his death different is that he was an innocent, and that he rose from it.

The problem I have with the movie The Passion of the Christ is that it focus' so much on his death and suffering at the time. But there were plenty of people who were put to death on the cross. There were others even at the same time as Jesus. They all suffered as well. But none were as innocent and pure and had the wisdom, and teaching and life that he had.

 

and...for Catholics, he was God, who humbled himself (the kenotic action) to become man and die. That's what makes his death different. God actually accepted death. It's meant to show the incarnation. The wood of the cross is meant to correspond with the wood of the nativity and the wood he used as a carpenter. The image is meant to be iconic, a connection of the earthly being changed by the divine.

It was called the Passion of the Christ, what else did you expect?

 

If he's sincere, I hope he can put all of this behind him.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060802/ap_on_en_mo/gibson_remarks_77

 

I agree with you about God accepting death for man's sake. That still doesn't mean it is worth disbanding churches or all the strife over whether or not there is a figure of Christ on the cross or not.

The important thing should be why he accepted death, and what the intent of that was. The act itself was done to serve a purpose. All I am saying is that the purpose is most important.

I did expect that from the movie, but it didn't have to be that way. Like I said, it wasn't like he was the only person ever crucified. Many others were, and I am sure many of them suffered a lot in the process. So I would focus more on what you mentioned about God accepting death, and the message behind than the actual suffering. That was the only part of the situation that wasn't unique.

 

I think twhy77 answered it better than I said it, not that you are actually doing it, but communion is participating in the passion.

 

It's the only time we've crucified God. And I think the movie did show the purpose of his death, just didn't blatantly bang you over the head with it. All were culpable for his death, even the one he set up to be head of his church. All were in need of redemption through his death. I think this point is especially clear. The centurion who pierces his side down to even his Mother praying by his feet, all were in need of that death, that real suffering of the divine inside the human. And then, like I already said, the purpose was then succintly resolved in the scene of his resurrection, indicating the hope for Man through him, i.e. the point of the movie.

Again, this was a very Catholic portrayal of the Passion. To better understand it one should try to view it through the Catholic lens, although that does not leave out people from any denomination or faith to enjoy it.