i've read enough about crucifixion to understand it. just reading the descriptions changed the imagery in my head. i expect the movie to be an affirmation of that, as i understand that's part of the motivation of Gibson. i don't think the Bible has to be the only way God speaks to us.
I fear this movie and I am not Jewish. I really think Gibson is pandering to the religious right (America's Taliban). I have already heard one public figure claiming this movie to be the savior to America's moral downfall etc, and he was personally invited to see the movie by Gibson. They already see this movie as a tool, a weapon, to bring them power. Get ready people.
I was somewhat surprised that it was written by a Catholic. I wouldn't be as surprised if it was from a biblicist evangelical. I mean, Catholics are very much into images. In fact, the medieval argument for images against iconoclasm was that images were means to teach biblical truths especially for the illiterates, and to enhance understanding for the literates. It could be similarly argued that movies are means to teach biblical truths to the Bible illiterates and enhance understanding of those who are already very familiar with the biblical account. That said, I think the guy's point is a good balance against over zealous selling of the movie among Christians. There are pitfalls that need to be aware of with something as powerful as this.
I don't see how it can be "a weapon to bring them power." I think it's kinda ironic that it used to be that conservatives "fear" some movies. And now liberals "fear" this movie.
yeah, i hear ya....my first thought too was that this sounded more like a Calvinist than a Catholic. i think this is just the use of another medium to communicate a particular aspect of the story. nothing wrong with that at all in my view. God can't be confined to art...but i can certainly experience God in art.
Max, I will read the article again when I have the time. I skimmed it before and it distinguished between what events where in the bible or not and which were interpreted in ways that differ from the widely accepted interpretations.
Because they claim their beliefs are god given, and this movie proves it. In the interview last night, Gibson admitted the passion plays help bring about the rise of Hitler. He brushed that off, claiming "Hitler was a monster." But Hitler wasn't the monster. The monster is the lust for power and a belief in your own righteousness.
well. the historical states in question have all been overthrown and replaced by other regimes, and the individual Holocaust/atrocity perpetrators in question are just about all dead from old age. same goes for the death of jesus. the jewish institutions and authorities which played a role in jesus's death have long been destroyed, and those people responsible have been dead for millenia. but the holocaust claims today are against current states and their present population, which have no connection with the regimes of the past save that they represent the same ethnic group. so likewise there is a jewish state today (Israel) and jewish religion/institutions representing jewish people. and so, if holocaust claims are valid, then by the same logic, christianity, the injured religion, which still alive today, has a right to claim "justice" against current jewish institutions and israel. with the sole difference that on one hand the crime is genocide, and on the other, deicide. (heck joshua was no slouch at genocide either). my point is that both these claims are absurd. both are mean-spirited and spiteful and goes against simple human decency (not to mention christian/jewish principles). just love our neighbors. just learn to forgive but never forget to learn from mistakes. if these jewish institutions (which today claim antisemitism from this movie) are so sensitive to even potential injury stemming from historical guilt (or association with historical crimes), then why do they at every opportunity insist on inflicting real injury on others for the same reasons? if they expect courtesy from the world, then shouldn't they try to be maganimious in return?
BTW, how classy of you to derail this thread with a topic that was beaten to death previously. Originally posted by Lil well. the historical states in question have all been overthrown and replaced by other regimes, and the individual Holocaust/atrocity perpetrators in question are just about all dead from old age. 1) The nation-states still exist 2) The individual criminals are at risk for war crimes. The nations-states are held accountable in other ways for those who were wronged. 3) THE PEOPLE WRONGED ARE STILL ALIVE same goes for the death of jesus. the jewish institutions and authorities which played a role in jesus's death have long been destroyed, and those people responsible have been dead for millenia. but the holocaust claims today are against current states and their present population, which have no connection with the regimes of the past save that they represent the same ethnic group. Nonsense. Nation <> Ethnic Group. so likewise there is a jewish state today (Israel) and jewish religion/institutions representing jewish people. and so, if holocaust claims are valid, then by the same logic, christianity, the injured religion, which still alive today, has a right to claim "justice" against current jewish institutions and israel. with the sole difference that on one hand the crime is genocide, and on the other, deicide. (heck joshua was no slouch at genocide either). 1) Christianity was not a religion at the time. How could it have been wronged? 2) The initial 'Christians', as Jesus, were Jewish. Gentile Christians came along later; 3) The Bible is not sufficient to prove that a wrong was committed; 4) The Bible is not w/o potential bias based on who held power at the time; 5) It is unclear how many Jews wanted Christ dead, and how many would have followed him to the ends of the Earth; 6) Apparently 'true' Christians today hold neither Romans nor Jews responsible for Jesus' death, since Christ died for everyone's sins; 7) Israel was not an independent nation by any means, it was a Roman province; I could go on and on. my point is that both these claims are absurd. both are mean-spirited and spiteful and goes against simple human decency (not to mention christian/jewish principles). just love our neighbors. just learn to forgive but never forget to learn from mistakes. if these jewish institutions (which today claim antisemitism from this movie) are so sensitive to even potential injury stemming from historical guilt (or association with historical crimes), then why do they at every opportunity insist on inflicting real injury on others for the same reasons? if they expect courtesy from the world, then shouldn't they try to be maganimious in return? Justice <> Spiteful. You advocate NO justice. Just forgive everybody for everything? Why not just throw out all laws? What sense are they, Lil wants everybody to forgive everybody else. What many Jews are worried about is not any 'historical guilt', they're worried about fundamentalist dodos who are already filled with hate, and how misrepresentations can incite them to harm others. Remember, most Jews don't believe that the New Testament is a 'historical document', why feel guilt? They weren't even alive 2000 years ago, why feel guilt? How would you feel if a movie was released indicting all Muslims for 9-11? You would know that was totally unfounded, yet you would be worried just the same, no? Or should we refer to your concern as 'historical guilt'? How would you feel if someone said: 'Have the Muslims EVER said sorry?' Bet you'd find that pretty offensive, eh? Did the wink help?
I saw the interview. Gibson said that Hitler was a monster who twisted the passion story. He said the story didn't turn Hitler into the monster he was. As far as I know, the last thing Christians believe is "in their own righteousness." In fact, the whole point of the Passion of Jesus is that we need him to suffer like that because we cannot be righteous on our own. But I know what you are getting at, and I agree that SOME Christians do appear self-righteous (ironically, just like the Pharisees Christ condemned).
This is scarier than a retelling of the Jesus story - people making decisions based on the interpretation that he's coming back soon: http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2004/0218/p11s01-lire.html The end of the world By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor When David got home from school, the third grader looked everywhere for his mom and sisters. They couldn't be found in the house or the yard. Suddenly the youngster panicked. What he'd been taught in church must have happened - they'd disappeared in the "rapture," and he'd been "left behind." For children raised in a fundamentalist Protestant background, "that wasn't an uncommon experience," says David Currie of his frantic moments years ago. They were taught Jesus could come at any moment to whisk believers to heaven and leave others to face seven years of "the great tribulation." Only after that period of suffering, violence, and disasters on Earth would Christ return in the Second Coming. Today, as belief in this end-times prophecy sees a resurgence among Americans - partly because of the phenomenal success of the "Left Behind" series of novels (58 million sold) and the disturbing "signs" of terrorism and war - Mr. Currie and others are seeking to refute the apocalyptic theology. Fundamentalists represent a minority of Christians - an estimated 25 million - but the interest in end-times prophecy has spread beyond their circles, and is not only shaping people's lives, but, say supporters and critics, even influencing US foreign policy. A 2002 survey showed that 59 percent of Americans believe that the events in the Bible book of Revelation will occur in the future. The theology behind end-time prophecy - premillennial dispensationalism (from the idea that God has divided history into ages, or dispensations) - emerged in 19th-century England. It was brought to America by missionary John Nelson Darby and spread at evangelistic conferences. While believers say it spurs righteous living and helps discern God's plan for the world, others see it as fostering a skewed sense of history and of what Christianity is about. . . .
i think it takes the focus away from being in the here and now..from saying, "this is the day the Lord has made, rejoice in it." There is nothing wrong with looking forward to God's promise..but newspaper theology is dangerous. Christ said it will come like a thief in the night....so why worry about it? "yeah, well i wrote a hit play, so i'm not sweating it either." - Max in Rushmore.
More newspaper theology. http://www.nydailynews.com/02-19-2004/news/gossip/story/166006p-145217c.html Furor just before Gibson's 'The Passion' opens By TRACY CONNOR DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Hutton Gibson A week before Mel Gibson's movie about Jesus Christ hits theaters, his father has gone on an explosive rant against Jews - claiming they fabricated the Holocaust and are conspiring to take over the world. "They're after one world religion and one world government," Hutton Gibson, 85, said in a radio interview that will air Monday night. "That's why they've attacked the Catholic Church so strongly, to ultimately take control over it by their doctrine." In the bizarre interview, Gibson also said Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan should be lynched and called for the government to be overthrown. The movie star's father has made outrageous statements about the Holocaust and Jewish conspiracies before. . . . But Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League said they were the words of a "classical anti-Semite." "If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny," he said. He's troubled by Mel Gibson's failure to condemn his father's beliefs, and pointed to a recent interview where Gibson said his dad never lied to him. "Well, he's been lying to the world, but it sounds like truth to the son? That's strange," Foxman said.
I don't call it a lie when it's what the man believes, and I don't hold Mel Gibson responsible for his father's idiocy.
What does one call it when one believes something in spite of repeated demonstrations of facts counter to that belief? Psychotic? Stupid? Quixotic?
Saul of Tarsus was a rabbi in what is now Turkey who was sent to research the original breakaway jews who formed the christians. He tormented them and hated the Christians, but had the famous vision on the road to Damascus, converted, and changed his name to Paul. He is really the one who started preaching to non-jews on a large scale, initially by preaching to the Jews of the dispora. He's a really intresting, sort of conflicted guy, because he was a well educated Jewish scholar who was comfortable in the world of Jewish legalism, but he was one of the first people to emphasize that it was not necessary because the internal beneficence that the love of Christ induced. This was important specifically regarding circumsision, which would have been really a really painful & dangerous impediment to large-scale conversion among Romans. But, given this central role in helping to break away from christianity, it is intresting that if you read the Letters of Paul in the New Testament, most of them sound like notes written by parents to their children at college about maintaining good behavior. As one of the first really well educated Christians, he was so important in helping define many of the doctrinal concepts that were beyond the initial group. Whithout him the communication of the vaguisms of Christ's message would have not been communicated to the dispora, and then the non-Jews. On the other hand I heard an interview with Ol' Mel recently, and he is not one of the great thinkers of our times, passion and faith notwithstanding. Try this - read the first three gospels in a row. All three of them tell more or less the same story, but with slightly different viewpoints. The most significant among these is the role of the Jews. I find it intresting that the one which portrays the Jews in the darkest light seems to be the most quoted version. I would suggest that it is because that is the story that plays out as the most Hollywoodesque struggle between clear good and evil, instead of a slightly more ambiguous story of a good-guy and his treatment by an indifferent world.
otto -- in case you're arguing with me, i'm not sure what we're arguing about! are you contesting paul's role with the sanhedrin? that he was in jerusalem? that he was a student gamaliel? that he started in every city by preaching in the temple, and working his way out from there? i'm confused..sorry. as for mel's father...i agree with the person who said that's sad. he is clearly carrying around a huge weight about jews. i don't understand that at all. but like macbeth says, i don't hold mel responsible for that...i hope my son isn't held responsible for my mistakes.
