Are you saying that the Bible would tend to defend the role of Rome because of the influence of the Roman Catholic Church? I don't think history would bear that out, but I half-suspect I'm reading you wrong anyway. What do you mean?
I wanted to see this movie until I saw a commericial that said, "Help Mel Gibson make this movie the #1 film of all time by reserving your tickets today!" It turned me off somewhat.
I always thought that the Pauline church, in an attempt to woo Gentiles (hence Romans), lessened the overall role of the Romans in Jesus' death through careful editing and theological license.
i don't see that...because they were preaching to jews first and foremost. paul himself started preaching in the temple in every city he visited. that was his starting point...and remember, he was among the sanhedrin before. he makes passionate pleas for jews to recognize the messiah foretold in the old testament. jesus was ultimately the cornerstone the builders rejected...but he certainly was not and is not rejected by all jews.
i'm guessing that ad was geared towards a believing audience..one who is really hoping this movie will open eyes about their lord, jesus christ...the message is not inappropriate when you consider who it is for. i have yet to see a preview or ad for this movie in any mainstream media outlet...only through church events have i seen it.
Time for some good ol' Jesus sensationalism... I just can't wait for my "The Passion" Triumphant Jesus action figure! (cross sold separately)
There is a general message of submission in the New Testament though. Wives, obey your husbands; children, obey your parents; slaves, obey your masters. Give to Caesar's what is Caesar's (and give to God what is God's). The NT writers, Paul especially (but perhaps only because he did so much of the writing), go out of their way to instruct believers to not overturn the world order. This could be construed to have been done to portray themselves as a legitimate religion and not some kind of trouble-mongers that Rome should try to wipe out. Or, it could be because it was a legit religion that valued the current institutions of world order. Hard for me to tell now. But, if you like to think of it as marketing, I can see how you could also believe the Gospel writers avoided blaming Rome to avoid being oppressed (not that it worked).
where's the sensationalism with this movie, meowgi? have you seen it?? i have yet to see the movie advertised in the mainstream media, at all...
I think you read it correctly. Why so shocked? Is it less shocking that historical texts apparently indicate that Rome ruled Israel harshly, yet it somehow felt compelled to abide by Jewish popular opinion, in this one instance? Do you believe that there is one supreme, perfect version of the Bible? Which one is it? In the oldest versions that I am aware of, there are differences, sometimes major ones, no? What role did the Catholic Church play? Didn't it claim authority the create 'the' version of the bible? And haven't there always been Christians who challenged the papal version? What is the derivation of 'magisterium' (and why is it needed in the first place)? I am no biblical scholar, but I place little faith in something that has so much potential for influence by the Catholic Church. (That doesn't mean that I find the religion useless...more analogous to the way I feel our our country and federal government. I love the country and there are many people in government there to do what's right. But history and common sense show us that there are many corrupt people, with personal motivations, who screw things up.)
One way or another, it's possible that Rome had it's influence felt. I don't know why I'm on this tangent anyway. We are discussing the movie.
I saw it advertised last night. It had snapshots of a crowd yelling, a woman and Jesus standing close face to face, etc. I generally agree with Mr. Meowgi, nothing wrong with making a movie about Jesus, but does Jesus really need a movie? There are so many important figures in the history of Christianity that you can informative, and exciting movies about. But Mel Gibson certaintly has a right to make a movie about whom he wants. Its like when a bunch of conservatives were upset about Spike Lee making a movie on Malcolm X. They asked him why not make a movie on someone more unifying like Martin Luther King. And Spike responded by basically saying why make a movie about someone everyone learns about already. He thought a movie about a less know figure does a lot more good.
Some of the NT verses like "Give unto Caesar ..." may reflect a need of a fledgling religion to not piss off the powers that be (Romans). These NT verses could be a concession toward their occupiers in exchange for toleration.
and it did...it was a great movie. you're aware this isn't the first movie about jesus right? you're aware that this story is probably the most influential story in western history, right?
I wouldn't say shocked, but, well, in disagreement. The reason is that the Roman Church was not particularly powerful in the Christian faith during the first several centuries. The center of the religion was in Turkey, Palestine and Egypt. The early councils that determined the course of the doctrine and the canon of what books were considered divine were dominated by representatives in the East, not by the bishop in Rome. It wouldn't be until the Roman emperor converted to Christianity in the 4th century (?) that the bishop of Rome would really be a major player and it wasn't until a couple of centuries after that that it had the real monolithic power that it is now known for. So, at first blush, I would be surprised if home-town considerations from a Roman representative would be given much weight. I'd find it more believable to say that all representatives were somewhat afraid of possible oppression from the State, but I wouldn't confine the blame to the Roman seat but spread it among all 5 of the major centers. And then, it wouldn't be a good-ole-boy argument anymore so much as a cover-your-ass argument.
i don't think you understand the point jesus was making. he was comparing the sovereignty of God with that of Caesar. Caesar's face was reduced to a little coin...so jesus looks at the coin and say, "whose face is on this coin? oh, caesar's? well give him what's his....and give God what's his." the temple leaders were trying to trip him up...they were hoping he would say, "nah..don't pay taxes," because that would have been insurrection against rome. in fact, the gospel accounts say that the sanhedrin appealed to pilate by convincing him that jesus was calling himself a king, and that should offend them since it was an affront to caesar and roman rule.
ok..so you're just saying it's overdone. i think gibson feels the story has been too softened....that the suffering of the cross truly hasn't been communicated on film. this isn't a story about jesus' ministry...it starts with him in the garden of gethsemene and he's abducted by the roman soliders right off the bat.
The Passion is a great story no doubt, and a lot of casual Christians may not be in tune with the events as they could be. You have to understand my perspective also, someone who attended Catholic School for 12 years. In elementary, we used to walk through the "Stations of the Cross" every Good Friday. So this is probably the part of the Bible I am most familar with and I maybe wrongly assuming that most Christians are as familar with it as I am.
The altering of New Testament texts is one of those subjects I hear so many people cite as fact, with nearly zero evidence to back it up. The council at nicea convened around 320 a.d. We have extant copies of paul's letters and other documents that comprise the new testament that predate that...and they're word for word what we have in our bibles today. the council at nicea's primary focus was dealing with what day of the week the resurrection occurred, and should that be celebrated as sabbath. as JV points out, this is more churches we would historically connect to Eastern Orthodox churches than the Catholic Church.
no, that's cool...i'm not saying you're wrong. i think few people understand death on a cross, though...including many christians. and every movie on jesus has glossed over the suffering and the violence. i mean, this is a movie that earned an R rating merely because of violence...which it should if it wants to accurately depict this sort of torture.
