Does it disturb anyone else that a hollywood movie is reaffirming people's faith? Are people truly that fickle?
why? one can find God in art. I find him in all sorts of unexpected places, including secular music (even if I have to twist the lyrics around to suit that purpose). God can and does use virtually anything to draw people to Him. There is a church called Ekklesia here in Houston, in the Midtown area. They've opened up a place called the Taft Arts Center...they host art shows for local artists, and encourage people to have some spiritual connection through the arts and through literature. Their pastor is a friend of mine and wrote an article about finding Christ in The Matrix. A good film makes people think...a great film makes people confront their own realities.
Excellent post, Max. I had a bunch of stuff typed, but I deleted it. Your first paragraph says how I feel.
I agree with MM. Art has been used since the beginning of time as a way to explore peoples religion. Art, music, architecture, etc.
Anyway, Pole raised a good point. We should take the D&D stuff over there and leave the hangout thread alone.
I agree 100%...It was a very powerful movie that moved me and made me realize, again, that Jesus sufferred dearly for us... Go see it, its worth it...
Is it contradictory for Pilate to be a ruthless ruler and sympathetic when it came to crucifying Jesus? The story I always learned is that Pilate, despite being a bad guy overall, did not really want to crucify Jesus. But the mob insisted on it.
Well, I haven't seen it yet but I plan to but I just wanted to address Oski's problem with Pontius Pilate. This probably belongs in D & D, but since the question is here I'll put it here as well. It is known that Pilate was in fact one of the cruelest procurators of Judea. He often went against the Jewish people's beliefs and opinions, and was known as a remarkably obstinate and infleixble person. He was even called back to Rome more than once to answer charges of cruelty. However, in the case of the trial and crucifixtion of Jesus, he did not show any of those characteristics. If you'll forgive me, I'll use the Bible as my source material since there's not really anything else I can find right off the bat. Pilate knew that Jesus was not guilty of any crime, and tried several times to get Jesus released, both of his own accord and at the urging of his wife (Matthew 27:19). He even appealed to the Jewish people themselves, but they rejected Jesus in favor of Barabbas (Matthew 27:21-27). It is possible that Pilate was afraid that if he released Jesus against the Jewish leaders' wishes, they would complain to Rome again, something that might have doomed Pontius' governorship. So, he aquieced, even though he never formally recognized Jesus as being guilty of any crime, even when Jesus was on the cross itself (Matthew 27:37). So, basically, there's nothing in the Bible's account that would portray Pilate as anything more than a military governor stuck in a hostile land and is forced to do something he doesn't want to do. Depending on how sympathetic Mel makes him out to be in the movie, I'd be willing to put it down to "artistic liscence" since Mel only uses this one case, and doesn't show Pilate as being completely out of character when he tries to free Jesus.
If we're talking accuracy, Gibson totally punted the language issue. My historian buddies tell me that the common language of the day was Greek when different groups were trying to communicate. So sure, the Romans spoke Latin to one another, but most historians believe they would have used Greek to speak with the locals, and vice versa. So Jesus spoke Aramaic to his buds, but he would have dropped some Greek science on the Roman administrators. Sorry. I don't really think the details matter.
and rocks_fan...i don't think even in that way of telling the story does Pilate come across as a good guy, by any means. even if he was up against a rock and a hard place, politically...just assuming that was the case...he put a man whom he believed to be innocent through a horrible, horrible beating and crucifixion. he allowed his guards to mock him and beat the hell out of him before nailing him to a cross. hardly a hero or even a person of sympathy, in any sense of the word, in my opinion.
I like people who make bold assertions with no proof. They're easier to dismiss than people who offer something to think about.
Believe it or not this movie and its success does concern me more than in a superficial anti-Gibson way. This movie has the evangelical types up in arms talking about sin and i don't have to tell you what their favorite target is right now., so yes this movie does have the potential to negatively affect my reality. this movie shows Satan as an androgynous woman with a male voice. To many people that means a gay or trandsgendered person. A lot of people already equate Satan to gays thanks to South Park! Of course Satan's presence in the movie is purely fictional.
Well, there goes your credibility. Seriously, I think you mischaracterize the movie by saying it is supposed to be historical. It is not; it's supposed to be Biblical. The line gets fuzzy, but there's a difference. A lot of historians would object to the accuracy of a story where Jesus miraculously heals a man's ear in the garden, but it is in the Bible, so it is in the movie. Likewise, the Bible describes Jesus' nail-wounds as being through his hands, so the movie has it that way, regardless of what Romans might have generally done. And, I don't think you can even say it is 'historically blatently wrong.' Romans generally did crucifixions one way (which you can see with the 2 thieves who only carried the crossbeams and who were tied, not nailed -- so don't pretend like Gibson isn't paying any attention to the scholarship), but there isn't any evidence that they didn't treat Jesus in a different manner. So, I don't think you can criticize the movie for departing from historical scholarship, but only if it departed from the Bible. Of course, it does do that as well. It has scenes that are not in the Bible. As I noted in the D&D thread, I went in with the impression the movie would be a video-translation of the Bible and came out realizing it was Gibson's retelling of the story. That's not necessarily worse, but this is definitely not the Bible itself. It is fiction based on the Bible. I don't think people are taking this as 100% truth. People who have read the Bible can see where the movie diverges. If you hope that seeing the movie will be sufficient for your salvation, you're probably in some trouble since it only deals with a very narrow aspect of the religion. But, it does conform to basic story and steals dialogue on all the pivotal points. Even the made-up stuff is generated from some kernel in the text. I would say it is true to the spirit of the original. Even with Pilate, I think your criticism that Gibson has ignored historical scholarship is unjustified. When Pilate has his existential conversation with Claudia (which isn't in the Bible, so I know you object already), Pilate explains the seeming contradiction between his mercy and his cruelty: that he treads a fine line in governing a difficult province and that a mistake either way could cost him his life. In fact, it seems that many of the extra scenes were actually attempts by Gibson to flesh out what we know Biblically with what we know from other avenues of historical scholarship.
sin is something we all share. that's the very message of Christianity. granted, people have twisted that. and if you're made to feel less of a person by any Christian, please accept my apology for their ignorance. they're simply misguided. i don't understand, getting back to the original point about the flashback, how you're talking about the same thing now, though. originally the concern was how flashbacks weren't in the text and you said he should be called out for that...from what i understand the flashbacks show the sermon on the mount...some memories of being a carpenter...some memories of love from his mom. why would you, in particular, have a problem with those? i guess my frustration here is that i'm hearing arguments out of the both sides of the mouth...on one hand, he's too literal for having Pilate wash his hands of it all...that he's irresponsible for quoting text...on the other i hear people say he's irresponsible for inserting flashbacks that aren't literally in the Bible...or for including Satan in the Gethsemene scene which isn't literally there. it just sounds like venting...i realize a lot of people have a lot of good reasons to be frustrated with the church...and i'm seeing that being vented against this movie.
Outlaw, I don't think you understand the conservative evangelical mind at all. It could be fairly said that I don't really understand your world and the sort of persecutions you must face. I'd consent to that. But, I think it runs the other way as well. I don't think conservative Christians will react the way you think they will (for the most part -- there will always be some jerk out there to prove me wrong). I don't think this is a movie to encourage self-righteousness and condemnation. I think most will react with self-effacement and mercy.
??? some people find any reason to get offended. A woman with a male voice is hardly something to associate to gays. I would think women would get offended first as associating females with satan. Satan is described as the most beautiful of angels, and as angels are not human, one can portray satan in almost any manner (which the horns and pitchfork is pretty off the wall). And if people use SouthPark for their imagination of Satan or anything for that manner, then there is not much left to discuss.
For sure... the same way educated people around the world use English to speak to each other when they don't know tthe other person's native tougue. In a country like India or Pakistan, where there are numerous languages, all the educated people speak English. Heck, the leader of Pakistan often makes his national speeches in English so everyone can understand him! Gibson blew that part.
Did any of you see Nightline yesterday? Ted Koppel discussed the movie with a six people who went to a showing sponsored by their church in Virginia (I think). A few were non-Christian (Jewish) friends who were brought along. Interesting discussion... At one point, Ted Koppel points out the difference between Pilate's historical description and the portrayal in the movie, and how one could consider it unfair to Jews. One of the women said something like, "Oh, I guess that's true."
