i've read that article, too. i guess i'm just having a hard time understanding. the story, like the words in text, have been misinterpreted...and if he stays true to the gospels, i suppose the movie, itself, has a chance of being misinterpreted by those wishing to twist it. but i don't know what he can do more than just tell the story as it is written in the gospels...particularly when that's what he's seeking to do. trust me, no one comes across as a "good guy" in support of Jesus in the gospels...not the early christians, not the jewish leaders, not the jewish masses, not the romans. no one. everyone abandons him. God foresakes him. that's the very essence of the story. i guess i'm just disappointed that there's so much focus on the "who killed jesus" aspect when christian theology, including the roman catholic church, today, says that the blame lays squarely at the feet of a world that chooses its own way in place of God's.
MadMax, I think the problem that some people have with the movie is that they believe that Gibson portrays Pilate in a sympathetic light, as someone who was pushed into doing what he did by the Jews. At least, that's part of what I got from the article. I'm not familiar enough with the Gospels to know if they portrayed Pilate in the same way, but it's my understanding that they did not. While I agree that the question of who killed Jesus and why should be irrelevant to Christians, it seems that it may not be irrelevant to Mel Gibson, at least in the context of this movie.
this is from Matthew 27: 15Now it was the governor's custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. 16At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. 17So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, "Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" 18For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him. 19While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him." 20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. 21"Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" asked the governor. "Barabbas," they answered. 22"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked. They all answered, "Crucify him!" 23"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" 24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" 25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" 26Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
the account in Mark is much the same as it is in Matthew...here it is in the book of John: 28Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. 29So Pilate came out to them and asked, "What charges are you bringing against this man?" 30"If he were not a criminal," they replied, "we would not have handed him over to you." 31Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." 32"But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected. This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled. 33Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" 34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" 35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" 36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." 37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." 38"What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him. 39But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?" 40They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.
Yeah, as Max showed, the gospels definitely paint Pilate as not wanting to crucify. The problem critics are having is that most churches do not really remain as strict in their reading now and understand that politics were involved. As Max said, now churches say the blame is on everyone. Back then, the blame was pretty much put only on Jews. So, to some Gibson is setting us back 2000 years or so.
that's right. so the problem isn't really gibson. he's merely presenting it the way it's been presented. the problem is people twisting the text...ignoring the rest of the story by focusing a few sentences.
Yeah, It would be nice if he just let the movie speak for itself. I agree. I was very interested in this movie when I first heard about it. But when looks like it is becoming less about art, and more about a propaganda tool with a certain agenda, I will become very turned off. Why do these people want this movie so bad? Is it to serve them? At least Last Tempatation of Christ annoyed the small-minded Christians. This movie will fuel them. When Scorsese did Kundun, I didn't not see such marketing techniques. The movie could stand on it's own merit; and it's integrity was left intact.
Which people twisting text are you talking about? Reforms starting in the 1600's? Or something else? Not an argument, just a clarification. I am curious, Max, and I apologize because you have probably said it before...but are you a literalist? I thought you weren't, but this thread seems to suggest otherwise. Do you give weight to any gospel-based reforms or "re-ubnderstanding" recognized by Catholic or Protestant churches? Also, to all...keep meaning to mention this - funny how Jesus Christ Superstar is the same in that Pilate is sympathetic, but the more conservative Christians protested that production. Now Gibson has essentially replaced music with Aramaic (I am simplifying the two, of course) and the non-conservative Christians are protesting. And of course, conservative Christians hated Godspell, despite it being literal down to the dialog. Only difference being Christ dressed as Superman and the music.
I mean people using the passion story to justify violence against Jews...laying the blame for Christ's death at the feet of the Jews. That's the twisting I meant. I don't know if I'm a literalist or not. I'm much less concerned with doctrine then I used to be...but I am much more of a literalist when reading the Gospels and the letters of the New Testament then I tend to be in reading the Old Testament. I don't know if I fit in any neat labels of faith. I've worshipped in Episcopal churches, Catholic mass, and the pews of a Southern Baptist Church. I currently am an elder in a Presbyterian church. Reform theology makes a ton of sense to me. But I'm certainly not a literalist about Genesis...not because I necessarily believe it didn't happen that way, but because I just don't know. I know that I believe the claims of Jesus Christ...and that I try to be his disciple. I think everything else is just something to argue about., for the most part. Remember, when he approached Peter he didn't put any qualifiers on his thoughts...he just said, "Follow me." There it is. I guess because I quote him directly I'm a literalist I never understood Christian concerns with either Jesus Christ Superstar or Godspell...particularly Godspell. Last night I watched the interview with Mel Gibson on ABC. During that interview I saw a commercial for some in depth study ABC is doing on Paul...and some dramatization of the story of Judas Iscariot. All this new interest in the story of Christ is fascinating to me...and exciting.
I heard about that but was unable to see it...anything new or interesting? Just don't expect much in the way of quality or even accuracy. It is network television, after all. Do you find it fascinating and exciting or somewhat hypocritical (as I do - to a degree)? There is going to be a flurry of mainstream attention to anything New Testament for a while - watered down and esily consumable. Everyone will talk about how cool it is...and then it will die down, having been a fad. Dances with Wolves comes out, suddenly everything is Native American. Gladiator - big, incorrect, picture books on Rome, etc.. All these fads are understandable in a capitalist society, it just seems to me that religion is different. I could just be overreacting or something but suddenly people Jesus sells because of Mel Gibson?
I think the concern was due to the times they were released (early '70s). The 'rock opera' concept was still new and 'rock and roll' was still 'evil'. If they had come out 10 years later, less eyebrows would have been raised. Nowadays, I have concerns about Jesus Christ Superstar because they have Sebastian Bach (Skid Row) as Jesus. Ugh! He was horrific.
On a side note... It is interesting that American Christians overlook a key element in both the teachings of Jesus, and in the Hebrew power structure's objections to him, namely that he completely opposed materialism/commercialism, and power based on wealth and status. The leaders within the 'Jewish' community of Jesus' time coupled being religious leaders with being among the most afluent, as had been a growing and accepted practice for some time. Jesus' strongest public outcries were against this aspect. ( In the temple, etc.) MM says he opposed the religious practices which disavowed genune faith, but this was only one aspect of his criticism. That a nation which A) is considered Christian and B) is very materialistic/commercialistic overlooks or shrugs this apsect off continues to puzzle me. Sort of.
1. not much from mel that you hadn't already heard, frankly. 2. Jesus isn't going away when the "fad" dies down. If this prompts people to pick up the Gospels, it's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. God can use a capitalist society just as well as he can use a church service. The Romans built roads...those roads were traveled by the apostles, allowing an easier spread of the claims of Christ. I suppose one could say that's happy coincidence. I'm not so sure that's the case, though. by the way...we say "watered down"...but Christ also talked about the faith of children...we're looking for complex answers and we hold true to some well-thought out doctrine..but Jesus just talked primarily about loving God and loving your neighbor. i think we then create competing ideas that we war over instead of unifying around the fact that Christ was who he claimed and that God loves us.
Have the Jews EVER said sorry? My real point is that aren't there still those today who demand the Germans, the Japanese, the French, the Swiss, etc. etc. etc. to collectively say sorry and to be meted huge monetary punishments for the Holocaust and other WW2 atrocities? If responsibility and justice should only be traced to the original individuals who committed sin, and if forgiveness is the path we insist upon for descendents of one group, then we need to grant it to all.
I see billboards in town for churches that show a "happy" family in front of a cross, but behind it all there is an American flag encompassing everything. Man it gives me the willies.
i don't think they overlook this. they may not live perfectly to it, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any tenent that anyone lives perfectly to. i do think there is a certain american idolatry with capitalism and the market, in general. it's certainly a struggle.
Max...this is the common response. However, in that this aspect was an issue about which JC was as clear or clearer than many issues contemporary American Christians take issue with, and considering that this society is the epitome of exactly the kind of materialism and commercialism that he opposed, I think it sounds like a cop-out to say " yeah, we're not perfect." Not saying it's your cop-out, more that it's the cop out of any American who porfesses to prioritize Christian teachings. It's easy to follow those teachings which don't inconvenience us, which stop others from marrying, etc. But when it comes at a cost of our SUVs, DVD players and condos, we seem to suddenly equivocate. To imply it's a struggle means that the median is vacilating somewhere between the American Dream and divesting yourself of all wordly possessions...do you think that that's accurate for most American chrisitians?
wait..you may be taking this a little further than my understanding of Jesus takes me. I don't think Jesus is saying you can't own a cd player. What he says is not to make material wealth or possession your personal "god." He essentially talked about money as an idol that people were bowing down to...and that you can't serve two masters. Some of his closest followers were wealthy...including Simon of Aramathea, who was apparently politically connected as well. I agree there is definitely a "cop-out" function in the whole, "we can't be perfect" stuff. I dont know what's accurate for most American Christians. I think it's a daily struggle to be a disciple to Christ, though. Check that..i KNOW it is.
