about mel gibson's new movie "the passion of the christ"

[morgan2]

anyone else get the feeling that there isn't really anyone outraged about this movie? It seems the only people who talk about it are the far right talk show hosts like Scarburough and Limbaugh. The whole idea is to get the people to think that some looney leftists are protesting christianity. The people involved with the movie love it because its going to mean a lot of money for them. All the people who follow the perveyers old fashion and religious on tv will go see the movie in an attempt to show how much they love god.

[Born_a_Democrat]

1. Mel Gibson is seriously "out to lunch"

I mean I read a part of his speech after one of the showings of the movie and it was just...whacked out...

I think this guy is more dangerous than Bush...

Think about it:

Bush lies and talks shit but he really doesn't believe it himself...he just does it for the money and power...

Mel Gibson actually believes what he is saying...kinda like Islamic Radicals...

[KissMyAsscroft]

2. I heard that O'Reilly invested in the movie.

I know that he is friends with O'reilly and he is right wing scum just like the rest of them, so it's probably just a stunt for free publicity.

[buff2]

3. Mel Gibson is a nutcase

I watched him in an interview the other night and he was such an ANGRY person....I mean he looked really freaked out angry. I've never been a fan of his,but after what I saw he's downright scary. :scared:

[Sugarbleus]

6. I haven't seen the movie... has anyone else yet?

I AM Christian..............a Liberal Christian. One who follows the teachings of Christ, not religion. I do LOVE GOD. I don't understand what all the uproar is about this flick. If someone can talk about whats wrong, maybe I could address this topic.

I sure hope that we liberals don't throw the baby out with the bath water. If a person is an atheist, that's his business. I just don't want to see an all-or-non religion bashing thing begin. All sorts of religions have been around since time began; good or bad, it's part of our history and a wee bit of good has come of it. In terms of the current fundie movement,yes they are off their rails.
Peace

[Sam Lowry]

7. I saw it

It's pretty incredible. I'm not religious, but it affected me. I think it's an important flick.

[thebigidea]

8. well, don't ruin the ending for us. I want it to be a surprise.

[Sam Lowry]

10. Well, there's a helicopter chase through downtown L.A.

My girlfriend is a serious Catholic, so she was into it on another level as I was, but what a f***in' movie. The only thing is that it WILL be called anti-Semitic, and somewhat credibly. On the other hand, it is essentially the same story that's in the Bible, and Jews don't come out looking too hot in that either.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

132. well then, maybe...

there is something that does not look too hot with the story in the Bible, cause Jews look just fine to me...

[bobbyboucher]

20. Hahahaha!

Brilliant!

[tibbiit]

73. snork, chortle lol, good one

hehe I like that early in the am.
("well, don't ruin the ending for us. I want it to be a surprise.")

tib

[bobbieinok]

75. someone could put pictures of angry Gibson and Dean side by side?

...

[aquart]

152. What on earth has he got to be angry about?

Not enough money? kids? respect?

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. My favorite complaint is that is shows Jesus as "suffering too much"

I forget who said it, some "guest" on one of the CrusadeNets, who apparently has some intriguing ideas about crucifiction.

[atreides1]

9. Heard on NPR

I was listening to NPR yesterday, one the speakers said that in portrayed the Jews as blood thirsty and the Romans as decent kind
men.

Also it seems that Mel Gibson, who put $25 million of his own money into making the movie is looking at selling t-shirts and other items to recoup his investment.

Another thing that was pointed out was, if Gibson is a member of a sect of the Catholic church that refuses to listen to the Vatican and the Pope, why does it matter if the Pope made a comment.

The Vatican has denied that the Pope in any way endorsed this film,
yet Gibson's people are still claiming that the he did.

Could it be that our boy Mel is mainly interested in getting non-sect
Catholics to go see the movie, knowing that's the only way he's going to get some of his money back.

From what has been coming out, I think all Gibson is interested in is his bottom line

[Tinoire]

45. Just found this tonight- What the Vatican Said

VATICAN CITY, Vatican, Jan. 22 (CNA) - Trying to put an end to the controversy sparked over whether or not John Paul II said “it is as it was” regarding Mel Gibson's film “Passion of the Christ,” the Holy See Press Office Director Joaquin Navarro-Valls issued a statement confirming the Pope's comments were not intended to become “official.”

“After consultation with the Holy Father's personal secretary, Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, I can confirm that the Pope has had the opportunity to see the film, ‘The Passion of the Christ’,” the statement says.

The press release describes positively the film as “the cinematographic recounting of the historical fact of the passion of Jesus Christ according to the Gospel accounts.”

The description is not irrelevant, since one of the bones of contention for some Biblical scholars -like Boston University's Paula Fredriksen- has been Gibson's accuracy in portraying the historical facts of the crucifixion.

<snip>

“But the statement does not reverse the Vatican position, expressed repeatedly in recent months -- notably by Archbishop John Foley, head of the Vatican office for Social Communications, Cardinal Dario Castrillon-Hoyos, head of the office which oversees all Catholic priests in the world, and Monsignor Augustine Di Noia, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that the film is deeply moving, worth seeing for all people, and not anti-Semitic.”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=506

[yankeeinlouisiana]

146. Historical Fact?

“the cinematographic recounting of the historical fact of the passion of Jesus Christ according to the Gospel accounts.”

How can this be historical fact when the only book it's in is a religious book? And according to the Gospels, not even they agree.

[fujiyama]

61. I can see it now...

4 stars -- The Pope

<<Also it seems that Mel Gibson, who put $25 million of his own money into making the movie is looking at selling t-shirts and other items to recoup his investment.>>

The Jesus Christ action figure -- now available with Ninja Kick!

[SharonAnn]

104. Pope is the head of the "Personal Prelature" of Opus Dei

So if you mean he's Opus Dei, then he would have allegiance to the Pope.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

142. If you're a Roman Catholic you have allegience to the pope

period - that's part of the package like it or leave it. Opus Dei or no Opus Dei.

[regnaD kciN]

12. From the one review I've read of it...

...the "suffering too much" comment lies in the way that the film tries to make it as bloody as possible, beyond the line of what would be necessary to get the point across.

[Sam Lowry]

14. You've missed the point

The point of portraying how gruesome the torture and crucifixion were is to show that, despite Jesus' doubts and fears, and despite how hideously painful he knew his fate would be, his faith in the divine plan was so strong that it led him through it. We are supposed to be awed by his strength and trust in God.

The only way to do that, and convey the message through raw, visceral emotion, is to show Jesus getting his ass kicked BAD.

[Tinoire]

49. Sam Lowry- you are one impressive, insightful dude.

Thanks for your posts. They mean a lot.

[Sam Lowry]

52. Now

Are you mocking me, or being transparent 'n' stuff? If so, thanks, dogg.

[Tinoire]

54. No, not at all!

I rarely mock at DU. The last time I did, I got one of those flashing yellow love letters from the Admin. Too dangerous to do here because people can't see the twinkle in your eye. I wasn't mocking you- just grateful for your insight and sense of fairness.

[Sam Lowry]

57. Well, then,

Thanks, Tin. I like the cut of your jib.

[Tinoire]

59. Lol

No jib sag there! I used the wire and cloth controls ;)

Peace again

[regnaD kciN]

119. Not really...

The only way to do that, and convey the message through raw, visceral emotion, is to show Jesus getting his ass kicked BAD.

The Rev. Mark Stanger, Canon of Grace (Episcopal) Cathedral, who has also seen the film, had a pretty good comment on this:

There was no reason for this (violence), spiritually or theologically. Do you remember in the movie "Gladiator" that short shot where he comes home to find his wife and family crucified, and there was also a report that she had been sexually assaulted beforehand? It was brutal and ugly and horrible, and you didn't need 20 minutes of blood flow to get the message across. I thought "The Passion" was really perverse and really depraved. There's a lot of criticism against the film that it gives a bad picture of Jews -- I think it gives a worse picture of Christians. Holding this up as somehow emblematic of something central to our belief -- this preoccupation with both sin and blood sacrifice -- is just absolutely primitive.

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/01/27/passion/index.html

[cantwealljustgetalong]

133. The Rev. Mark Stanger...

is one impressive insightful dude...

"this preoccupation with both sin and blood sacrifice -- is just absolutely primitive"...

yep, Reverend, and thank you for your impressive insight...

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

145. perhaps much the same way one makes a point...

without using cheap gratuitous name-calling...

anyway, his point goes beyond the mere showing of violence...

[hlthe2b]

5. Wasn't one of the prime time news magazines going to interview him?

This week? (i.e., Dateline, 20/20, PrimeTime, or another...)

I actually am curious and would watch/tape that, but I don't know when or what show it is... Anyone know?

[sendero]

11. I hafta think.

... that it is the height of arrogance to think you know what went down 2000 years ago.

Fiction, based on fiction. Nothing more.

[David Zephyr]

13. Real Christians Know That The Jews Did Not Kill Jesus.

The Romans killed Jesus.

In fact the early Christians were little more than an off-shoot of the Jewish faith and relied on Jewish temples for their meetings.

The blaming of the Jews for the death of Jesus was a cowardly way to placate the Romans.

Mel Gibson's film continues with this malicious tradition of blaming the Jews for killing Jesus. It is truly reprehensible.

If any Christian wants to truly get beyond the popular myths and read the best researched and scholarly work on this subject to my knowledge, then may I recommend Paula Fredriksen's "From Jesus to Christ. The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus."

Of the many books on Christianity that I have read over the decades, this certainly is at the top of my list.

[Sugarbleus]

15. Ok, I would be rather grossed out with the bloody scenes etc.. but

It is TRUE that the ruling Jewish Religious leaders were threatened by Christs radical ideas. Christ was a jew and loves jews, as do I. However,the very point most regular christians miss is that Christ was pretty dang upset with the pompous Religious leaders of His time. He was ANGRY with their oppressive legalistic edicts over Gods people and angry with the corruption within the religious establishment as it was at the time.

If Jesus were here today, speaking like he was then, about the poor, the oppressed, the sick, the every increasing importance on wealth and earthly achievemnt...HE WOULD BE KILLED AGAIN (by the likes of Pat Robertson et al, no doubt), jailed as a rebel dissenter etc. Christ CHALLENGED the religious elite and got himself executed. The Pharisees of the time were so insensed about this little dude coming from nowhere telling them how God wants them to treat people..it ROCKED THEIR WORLD...they conspired to get rid of Him. He knew the "book" forwards and backwards and constantly challenged the religious leaders on points they were, apparently dismissing. It ticked them off; made them "uncomfortable".

So, they presented a case to the Romans at the time using terms like Christ claims he is king etc. The Romans didn't want an uprising of the elite jewish leaders (sound familiar?) so they set upong doing the dirty work of those cold blooded Religionists.
Still, Jesus was a Jew. His message is for the Jews first because He LOVES THEM. We are an offshoot of that movement and we are NOT to harm or remove Israel. This is in no way an attack of Jewish people...that was a long time ago. Jesus wanted his jewish brethren to "hear" what He was saying and understand the true heart of God, to set them free from religious oppression (does this sound familiar also?). Many Jewish people followed Him, his followers/apostles were jewish. Again,the only people who were upset with him were the ruling elite religious community of the time. The message again is that our religious communities especially of the right wing fundie movement is that Christ is much more liberal than they could ever imagine.... :D
Most of our Religious leaders today would have Christ jailed, or killed all over again. The story is an attack on oppresive, narrowminded, legalistic religiosity..not the jews.
Peace~

Some interesting sites. Take what you like, leave the rest.
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org
http://www.jesusnorepublican.org
http://www.endtimesnetwork.com

[YNGW]

22. If Jesus were to come back today...

... there would be a LOT of people from across the political spectrum who would want to kill him, fundies and liberals alike, and some for the same reasons, and some for different reasons.

[bobbyboucher]

25. I agree, they'd kill him again.

Whether literally or by the tele, he would be crucified again. His true teachings wouldn't fly today.

:toast: to the true meaning of Christianity.

[Sam Lowry]

26. Nah

He'd just be preaching to no one on the A train like half a dozen people I see everyday.

[Djinn]

29. If he ever came back

he'd be completely ignored and written off as a bampot "yes yes you're Jesus and that bloke there is Napolean" or if he got a wee bitty shirty he'd be institutionalised

[Solomon]

68. If he came back he would be sent to the electric chair

and then we'd all be wearing little chairs around our necks instead of crosses.

[David Zephyr]

24. The Jews of Jesus' Day

Here's where I differ with you. Bear me out.

The Jews were not at the time of Jesus nor now a monolithic community and they had then, as they do today, healthy debates over not just scriptures, but social issues as well.

I agree with you that Jesus was probably more liberal than many of his fellow Jews at the time, but I do not accept that they felt "threatened" as you say. They were threatened by the Romans who were occupying their small country. It appears that from Jesus' teachings that he was certainly more progressive than perhaps some such as the Pharisees which you mention, but I'd have to say that the Essenes were even more progressive and communal than Jesus was. Further, there were real radicals such as Bar-Jesus, who openly revolted against the tyrannical rule of the Romans.

Jesus' approach into Jerusalem at the Jew's highest holy days was at a time of great anxiety for the Romans. Certainly, Jesus' actions at the Temple were more than enough to have the Romans arrest him and put him to death in their eyes.

It was a political, not religious crucifixion by the Romans. The Jews and High Priest of the Jews had nothing to do with the death of Jesus. Christians need to let this go.

Millions upon millions of Jewish children and adults have been murdered and persecuted because of this myth. It's time to speak out against it.

Mel Gibson has no shame.

[Djinn]

31. a technicality but

I really don't think anyone has been persecuted or killed because of a myth - they were killed because people who don't even understand the political/social/economic pressures and tensions of their own time think they can accurately discern what happened thousands of years ago based on the written opinions of a handful of people with their own biases and translated from a dead language. This goes for all religions as far as I can tell

[incontrovertible]

46. uh, okay, I'm sorry, but, have you ever READ the Gospels?

The Jews and High Priest of the Jews had nothing to do with the death of Jesus.

Matthew: 27:1 - 27:66
Mark: 15:1 - 15:47
Luke: 22:52 - 23:49
John: 18:1 - 19:37

The interrogation and condemnation of Christ by the high priests and elders of Jerusalem are thoroughly detailed throughout all four accounts. You basically just said the Gospels are all a collection of lies, which basically invalidates the entire religion. There exists no Biblical account of the crucifixion outside of the four detailed in the passages above, and certainly nothing about the Romans crucifying Christ purely for political reasons.

I appreciate your concern about a potential increase in anti-Semitism amongst morons, but your repeated contention that the Reality of Christianity bears no resemblence to the Biblical account is frankly an affront to the whole notion of intellectual honesty, to say nothing of outright heretical. Really - I'm not kidding. You might as well say that Jesus was sixteen feet tall and could fly, or that he was a pimp and Mary Magdalene was his prostitute, because you are making up dogma, Zephyr!

I'm guessing that you do not believe that Jesus's death was a blood sacrifice for the salvation of mankind, that he was not resurrected, and that he was essentially just a compassionate rabbi whose death was used for political purposes to undermine the Roman order - am I close? Because if I'm wrong, and you do consider yourself a Christian, and do believe in the divinity of Christ, then I would sincerely like to know: On what do you base your faith, if you reject the validity of the Gospels themselves - the one section of Biblical text that has always been considered the foundation of the faith?

[David Zephyr]

77. Actually, I Have Most of The Book of Matthew Memorized.

Again, the Jews did not kill Jesus. Even the story as relayed in the Gospels shows this clearly.

Sorry for what you think is a challenge to your faith. It wasn't meant to be. If Jesus is God, then he doesn't need you to defend him, does he?

You use the word "basically" far too much when you rephrase into your words the words of another. Where did I say that "the Gospels are a collection of lies, which BASICALLY invalidates the entire religion"?

Also, I did not make any "contention that the Reality of Christianity bears no resemblance to the Biblical account" either.

Further, calling me "heretical" is really something else. And implying that I said "Jesus was sixteen feet tall and could fly, or that he was a pimp and Mary Magdalene was his prostitute" is a deceit on your part and most unchristian, I would suggest.

Whether or not I "believe that Jesus' death was a blood sacrifice for the salvation of mankind" is really none of your business, is it?

If you really want to converse with me, then try again. Otherwise, if you simply want to attack me, call me names under the pretense of dialog, then you are wasting your time.

You'd be very surprised to learn just how much I might actually know and that I might actually be on your side of the argument. Just imagine that!

Here's a tip for you that I learned from the scriptures:

"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let everyman be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath." James 1: 19

[incontrovertible]

91. Then on what specific points do you disagree?

You've nearly memorized the Book of Matthew. That's commendable, although I have to say I wonder why.

Again, the Jews did not kill Jesus. Even the story as relayed in the Gospels shows this clearly.

"The Jews" are not the issue. The established religious order, which, for reasons of no consequence whatsoever, happened to be composed of Jews, conspired to have Christ executed for what they considered to be a valid charge of blasphemy. The men who nailed him to a cross and hung him up to die were, indeed, Romans - acting on the orders of Pilate, who had acquiesced to the demands of an angry mob, which was agitated by the leaders and priests of the established religious order. ALL FOUR Gospels agree on this virutally word-for-word, and so my blunt question to you is, do you believe, or disbelieve, in any or all aspects of this account? Since you've nearly memorized the Book of Matthew, let's just stay with that one (although, again, all are virtually identical), and let me ask you specifically which items you believe, or disbelieve, point-by-point. At any point, just jump and say, “I believe this happened,” or “I believe this did not happen, because…”

The Gospel of St. Matthew recounts the final hours of Christ's life as follows:

1] At the conclusion of the Last Supper, Christ leads the Disciples to the Garden of Gethsemene upon the Mount of Olives. (Matt. 26:30)

2] On the way, Christ informs Peter that he will deny ever having known him, three times, before the night is over. (Matt. 26:31–35)

3] At the garden, Christ prays that he won’t have to be crucified after all, and gets quite upset. The Disciples are unable to stay awake and keep him company. (Matt. 26:36-46)

4] Judas arrives, with, as Matthew describes it, “a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priest and elders of the people.” He identifies Jesus by kissing him on the cheek. Jesus immediately forgives him. The soldiers of the “chief priest and elders” seize Jesus. One of the Disciples draws his sword and cuts off the ear of one of the soldiers. Jesus commands that Disciple put his sword away, tells him those who live by the sword eventually die by it, and heals the ear of the soldier. He is then willingly led away. (Matt. 26:47-56)

5] Jesus is taken to “to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together.” (Matt. 26:57). He is interrogated at great length by the high priest, ultimately driving Caiaphas to “rend his garment” in rage at his “blasphemy.” The scribes and elders all unanimously agree he is worthy of death, then spend some time beating and spitting on him. (Matt. 26:59-68).

6] Peter is discovered watching outside. When confronted by a woman who recognizes him as a Disciple, he denies having ever known Jesus, three times. (Matt. 26:69-75)

7] In the morning, the chief priests and elders solidify their vote to have Jesus executed, then take him in chains before Pilate (Matt. 27:1-2)

8] Judas, realizing what’s about to happen, freaks out, tries to give back his bribe, then immediately goes and hangs himself. (Matt. 27:3-10)

9] Pilate questions Jesus as to his claims about being “King of the Jews,” (to which Jesus answers, basically, “sure.”), and listens to the various unspecified charges leveled at Jesus by the priests and elders. Pilate is stunned that Jesus declines to defend himself. (Matt. 27:11-14)

10] A crowd gathers to have a voice vote on which prisoner is to be released as part of the Passover tradition. Pilate asks whether the crowd would prefer that he spare Barrabas, a “notable criminal,” or “Jesus, who is called Christ.” Pilate’s wife comes along and asks him not to have anything to do with executing Jesus, because she had been disturbed by a dream about him this very day. (Matt. 27:15-19)

11] The crowd, persuaded by the priests and elders, votes to release Barrabas. Pilate asks what they want done with Jesus. The crowd demands he be crucified. Pilate asks why: “what evil hath he done?” They don’t really answer, just keep demanding he be crucified, to the point where Pilate worries a riot might break out. Pilate washes his hands of the matter and says “see ye to it” (“fine, then.”). The crowd responds, “His blood be on us, and on our children.” (the one line of the movie that particularly offends its critics in the ADL, regardless of it being a direct quote from a Gospel). Barrabas is released, and Pilate orders Jesus to be scourged and crucified. (Matt. 27:20-26)

12] The Roman centurians torture and mock Jesus, then take him off to Golgotha to be crucified, where he is further mocked by the priests, elders and passers-by as he hangs there dying. Ultimately, he dies, at which point a great earthquake hits, and the veil of the Temple is split from top-to-bottom, symbolizing the end of the established religious order.

And there you have it, Mr. Zephyr: The Passion of the Christ, as recounted by Matthew, an account you claim to have memorized, yet mere paragraphs ago you described as a “malicious tradition,” and the filming of which by Mr. Gibson you described as “reprehensible.” So I ask again: In your opinion, is the Gospel of Matthew actually the Gospel of Matthew, or is it a “reprehensible” “malicious tradition?” What is the story of Jesus Christ, if not that presented in the Gospels? Have you any other credible source? Particularly one that’s been considered the cornerstone of the faith since the first century?

Sorry for what you think is a challenge to your faith. It wasn't meant to be. If Jesus is God, then he doesn't need you to defend him, does he?

No, He does not. The faith, however, is under constant attack, both from within and without. The faith is corruptible by the mere imaginations of mere mortals.

You use the word "basically" far too much when you rephrase into your words the words of another.

I use whatever phraseology I choose to express whatever point I wish to make, as do you, as does everybody else. If you want to debate my writing style, I’m sorry, but I’d rather debate the foundations of the Christian faith, since you tend to speak as an authority on it with no Biblical basis whatsoever, or at least none you’re willing to share.

Where did I say that "the Gospels are a collection of lies, which BASICALLY invalidates the entire religion"?

By describing the Gospel account of the Passion as a “malicious tradition” and stating that some other actual “Truth” exists, independent of the Gospels, that you know, but can’t (or won’t) document. The religion is what the religion is, sir. Your suppositions hold no more weight in context of the actual religion than those of the people who contend, absent any Biblical basis, that Christ was either “white” or “black,” when the Scripture clearly records that he was a Nazarene Jew from no less than the House of David – as Jewish as one can be.

Also, I did not make any "contention that the Reality of Christianity bears no resemblance to the Biblical account" either.

You contend that the Passion as depicted in Gibson’s movie is a “malicious tradition,” and contend without evidence that it bears no resemblance to actual reality. So again I ask – please go point by point through my numbered list above, and clearly state, “This is true,” or “This is not.” If you’re feeling generous, you might also provide evidence for any claims, but I scarcely hope for that.

Further, calling me "heretical" is really something else.

It is indeed heretical to contend that the Gospels pale beside one’s own unsubstantiated opinion as to the “truth” about the life and death of Christ.

And implying that I said "Jesus was sixteen feet tall and could fly, or that he was a pimp and Mary Magdalene was his prostitute" is a deceit on your part and most unchristian, I would suggest.

I implied no such thing. I said that you might as well say that, because your continued apparent denial of the Gospel accounts amounts to your making up dogma to suit your own prejudices and vanities. Your claims to extra-Scriptual innate knowledge of the “actual truth” of the Christ hold no more validity than David Koresh’s contention of the exact same thing.

Whether or not I "believe that Jesus' death was a blood sacrifice for the salvation of mankind" is really none of your business, is it?

It is if you contend that your understanding of the faith is inherently superior to my own, Biblically-based one, thereby making you a more valid example of a Christian than myself, or the 1.49999999 billion others of us who accept the validity of the Gospels. Even then, it’s only my business inasmuch as you intend to challenge the core principles of the faith, presenting yours as the “one true” Christianity (which doesn’t believe in the blood sacrifice of the Christ for the salvation of mankind, a la several Episcopalian bishops) to the rest of the world. That will invite challenge. As to your own understanding of Christianity, that is indeed your business, and yours alone.

If you really want to converse with me, then try again. Otherwise, if you simply want to attack me, call me names under the pretense of dialog, then you are wasting your time.

I’m not attacking you, I’m challenging your contentions regarding a faith for which vast numbers of believers have been martyred, and through the distortion of which countless others have been murdered – the most vile example being the Holocaust, the second most vile being the cultural and personal genocide of the Americas, the third most vile being the Crusades, the fourth most vile being the Inquisition, and the list continues. Extra-Scriptual projections onto Christianity are dangerous, as well as heretical. Your particular contentions are benevolent in nature, and I recognize that, so don’t think I ascribe any such characteristics to your own worldview. That does not, however, make your contentions immune to challenge, or afford them automatic acceptance. Nor does it mean that I should hang my head in shame for appreciating Mr. Gibson’s inconsequential little movie, or believing the story it endeavors to tell.

[Tinoire]

105. Whew- Wish I had written that

You have one of the firmest grasps on the matter than most people I know. Just the type of person I'd love to discuss this with over dinner or something.

Dean wanted a dialog on race... I think America is about to have one on religion. Both are long overdue.

[incontrovertible]

106. Wow - sincerely, thank you

That's humbling coming from you. I appreciate your sentiment, and your observation with regard to a national dialogue on both race and religion.

[JasonDeter]

122. Awesome work. And in and with the Love of Christ too.

The Bible is a most wonderful work, but if it isn't read in/with/by Faith so easy to misinterpret. You have shown yourself a workman who needs not be ashamed.

Jason.

[lapislzi]

72. There is scholarship suggesting

That Jesus was himself an Essene. Could explain a lot.

[David Zephyr]

78. Hi Lapislzi! I Actually Believe Jesus Was an Essene.

Amazing how you picked up on that. You have a very high antenna.

John the Baptist also was an Essene.

I've been to the ruins of their commune in Israel and studied this quite a lot.

I'm impressed. :hi:

[PATRICK]

93. Guessing games

Sure the Baptist seemed like a break away member bent on a prophetic mission using Essene style lingo and asceticism, but Jesus seems to have derived any of that content only from John. As for what He was doing messing around in the desert or during his prior thirty years or so all the scholarship in world boils down to term paper hyperbole.

It mainly shows Jesus was not operating in a vacuum pulling original ideas completely out of thin air. What we are able to glean from the times through scant evidence helps to understand this.

[David Zephyr]

94. Far More Than Just Guessing Games.

And far more than just John and the baptising.

Jesus used unique language to the Essenes which you may be familiar with such as "children of the light" "children of the darkness" and much more.

I very much agree with you that Jesus was hardly operating in a vacuum. In fact, Nasareth where Jesus grew up was just some three miles north of the now discovered city of Sepphoris which was cosmopolitan and inhabited by not only Jews and Romans, but Greeks and Arabs.

[PATRICK]

95. Our jaded times

Early Christians- back when crucifixion was all too common and worse- added to the scandal of an illegal new cult founded by an executed criminal(possibility for rebellion) made them want to downplay at least the visuals. Mark's Gospel however put the cross back front and center with a boldness that blew away this reticence in the Scriptures and teachings.

However, no one ever used the tortures for entertainment like Braveheart Gibson and other Hollywood gore artists, except for Nero and perhaps the Spanish. Since it is all 99% speculative beyond the words(some conflicts there) in the Gospels- why?

Does the popcorn and coke crowd need a Greek style catharsis this badly? I felt very uncomfortable in a theater watching an earlier, softer Jesus movie, a dignified, pared down ethereal approach using Max Von Sydow and mainly John's Gospel structure and speeches. Then they threw in John Wayne for a cameo. As a Hollywood experience it jarred though later viewing of the film at home was more edifying.

Lovingly butchering the murderous raider William Wallace after demolishing the actual historical record warns me to stay far far away from this. You can learn from Zeffirelli and Pasolini or you can sit in the coliseum and watch what excitements Nero has to trundle out for us today. Gibson is too often called a Catholic when in fact he belongs to a heretical sect. The Church with good reason hates using the words heretic, schismatic, etc, but the Church Gibson loves is one of complete Infallibility- so long as it agrees with Gibson and his group. Such intolerance and fanaticism breeds familiar dumb evils the Church has enough problems with already.

[David Zephyr]

97. Brilliant and Poignant.

You spoke how I feel, Patrick. Thanks.

[Tinoire]

107. They are still Catholic and recognized as such

Their only difference with the rest of us is that they reject certain aspects of Vatican II for some pretty sound theological reasons dealing with the Novus Ordo mass, the ripping out of the High & side altars to relegate the Blessed Sacrament to a side closet. It may not seem like much, but there is a school of thought that saw that as pushing God to the side to place man in His place.

The differences are mostly liturgical. I am quite certain that they are not considered heretics or are not excommunicated.

When it comes to beliefs central to the faith, to include the Passion of Christ, there are no disagreements.

[regnaD kciN]

121. With all due respect...

..."there is scholarship suggesting" virtually anything and everything. Much of said "scholarship" (such as the works of a Barbara Thiering or John Shelby Spong) consists of unsupported speculation that is, frankly, the laughingstock of the scholarly community. The problem is that there isn't much to be gained, in terms of public attention, from scholarly work which basically supports what has been said all along. If you want to "make a splash," that can only come from novelty, from claiming something that hasn't been claimed before. So, "scholars" who wish to gain attention, can only do so by coming up with something new and "radical," that can be covered in news stories and magazine articles as "controversial" and "challenging traditional assumptions." In many of these cases, by the time the scholarly community gets through with its de facto peer review, very little of this "radical" work is left standing...but, by then, of course, the mainstream media has long since moved on.

(For the record, I'm a Christian, but not a fundamentalist. I don't believe that all we need is to look up the answer in the Bible...but I similarly can't deny that there has been a great deal of nonsense brought before the public eye, in the name of "a new look" at biblical events.)

(And, yes, I've heard the theory that Jesus was an Essene -- and the countervailing theory that "the temptation by the Devil" consisted of John sending his new, promising disciple to meditate in the desert, where representatives of Qumran came to him and tried to persuade him to join the Essenes. In short, according to this theory, the Essenes were the "voice of Satan." I have no way of knowing if either of these theories is right, but I will say that, if Jesus was an Essene, he certainly doesn't sound much like a typical one, based on what we have learned about the Qumran community, nor one that would be likely to last long there.)

[David Zephyr]

135. Operative Word: "Was"

It's obvious that Jesus was not an Essene during the last years of his life since he was "off the reservation" so to speak. That is evident.

The fact that he might have lived from as early as 12 for some foramtive part of his life could account for the Essene-like language in his message and the other striking similarities.

Your last comment "nor one that would likely to last long there" is close to my personal thinking: There, but for how long? We don't know.

[JasonDeter]

139. Jesus Christ knew all men and all things.

Why would he join Himself to 'a way' when He knew He was and is "The Way?"

[regnaD kciN]

120. That doesn't compute...

Certainly, Jesus' actions at the Temple were more than enough to have the Romans arrest him and put him to death in their eyes.

It was a political, not religious crucifixion by the Romans. The Jews and High Priest of the Jews had nothing to do with the death of Jesus.

It seems to me that, if Christ's "cleansing of the Temple" was enough to get the Romans to want him dead, it likely was more than enough to get the High Priest and the Temple overseers to want the same thing.

I've studied quite a bit about the subject, and will agree with you that there were many, many different "types" of Judaism at the time. Jesus is recorded in the Gospels as being harshly critical of the Pharisees as a whole, but it is also clear that he had a number of friends and contacts in that group -- in other words, "lines of communication were open" between the two sects. On the other hand, the Saducees who controlled the temple were opposed to and opposed by both groups, and had worked out a nice arrangement with the Roman overseers that kept them in power. Anything that might disrupt that arrangement (such as a rebellion that might prompt a Roman crackdown) was obviously a threat to them -- but there was also another threat, in that the version of Judaism preached by Jesus was an internalized, spiritual form that (much like the Pharisee version, if more extreme in this sense) was less centered around, if not altogether dismissive of, the importance of the Jerusalem Temple as the very cornerstone of Judaism. This would obviously be quite worrying to them from a standpoint of the loss of power and prestige; however, if you assume (as I think one must) that the Saducees were sincere in their religious beliefs, a departure from a Judaism based on the importance of Temple sacrifice as a means of staying in God's favor would be seen as a dangerous heresy that might well result in divine rejection of Israel, as previous idolatry was seen to have brought about the Babylonian exile. When you then go on to consider that Jesus had openly defied them by the incident in the Temple, I can see quite easily that the Saducees might well have concluded that this man must be stopped, and would have worked together with the Romans to bring that about. (None of which, needless to say, "proves" that Jews as a whole, either of that time or of ours, were "responsible" for Christ's death, any more than the involvement of Roman officials "proves" that all Italians today are similarly guilty.)

[Dr Fate]

23. Historically, yes, but as far as the King James Biblical text goes, no...

Yes- you are right- By the time the Holy Roman Church got ahold of the canon, the emphasis in the story was shifted from Pilate to the corrupt Jewish clergy...

I have not even seen the movie yet- does Mel actually stray very far from the King James Text?

At this point I think I'm on Mel's side. I find it hard to believe he "hates Jews".

Perhaps after I see the movie I'll know for sure if he is just follwing the King james text or going overboard...

Could the intpretation be more universal- like, even your own people can betray you and do bad things? Arent there good Ancient Jews & bad Ancient Jews in the new testament and in real history? Isnt the hero of Mel's movie a Jew?

All I am saying is that not everyone believes in the historical version of Jesus's life. There are plenty of fine, intelligent people who believe the biblical text is indeed "gospel". I know alot of people who believe the Bible but dont read the crucifixion as "anti-Jewish" or "soft on the Romans"- it goes way past that- beyond Ancient Jews and Romans to be applied to all people...

[David Zephyr]

33. A Few Comments.

I did not say that Mel Gibson "hates Jews" so I am confused as to why you placed that in quotes under my post. I will say that he is perpetuating a myth that has caused unimaginable sorrow to Jewish people who still must live in a world where they are a tiny minority.

Dr. Fate, I do appreciate you taking this a step further and stating, "you are right- By the time the Holy Roman Church got hold of the canon, the emphasis in the story was shifted from Pilate to the corrupt Jewish clergy...". This is indeed the truth and am glad to hear others here say so.

The Book of Matthew and Luke both were written, I believe, to take the heat off of the Christians from the Romans by placing the blame of Jesus' death on the Jews. Sort of like a battered spouse detouring a drunken partner's wrath and abuse to a child. Mark, the oldest gospel and thereby the most reliable in my estimation, does not blame the Jewish people the same way that Luke (who was not Jewish to begin with) and Matthew seem to.

I appreciate you stating the obvious, because many times the obvious is not stated where you assert that there were "good ancient Jews & bad ancient Jews". And there were good ancient gentiles and bad ancient gentiles. The Jews have no corner on evil, there's enough in this world for all of us to bear responsibility for. It's the finger pointing within religion that gets scary and ugly.

I don't think that Jesus would wish his followers to blame Jews for his death. To believe that would negate everything he taught, wouldn't it?

Peace.

[incontrovertible]

44. Mark

tells the exact same story, almost word for word, as Matthew, Luke and John:

Matthew: 27:1 - 27:66
Mark: 15:1 - 15:47
Luke: 22:52 - 23:49
John: 18:1 - 19:37

Again, the supposition that the four Gospels are all fraudulent would tend, in my mind, to invalidate the entire religion.

[LeahMira]

64. THAT is the problem...

Again, the supposition that the four Gospels are all fraudulent would tend, in my mind, to invalidate the entire religion.

The gospels tell a tale that historically speaking just could not have happened. The Jewish people of the time could not possibly have been responsible in any way for the death of Jesus. But, if that is accepted as a fact, it puts the entire Christian Testament into question and, by extension, the entire Christian faith... for some folks.

The Hebrew Testament speaks of Joshua and the walls of Jericho. Archeologists and other scholars have proved that there was no such event. There are no walls, no rubble, no indication that the event ever happened. Still, the Jewish people have not abandoned their faith because of this discrepancy.

As David Zephyr (sensibly, IMO) says, it is more important to find truth in the Biblical accounts than to look for facts. Both Testaments provide insights into universal human dilemmas and the human condition... among other things. That is their value and that is their truth. Biblical literalists miss this, and so they usually miss the real message.

[incontrovertible]

74. and on what do you base that?

The gospels tell a tale that historically speaking just could not have happened. The Jewish people of the time could not possibly have been responsible in any way for the death of Jesus. But, if that is accepted as a fact, it puts the entire Christian Testament into question and, by extension, the entire Christian faith... for some folks.

"Just could not have happened?" Which part, the crucifixion and resurrection? The public condemnation of Christ by the mob? All of it?

the walls of Jericho. Archeologists and other scholars have proved that there was no such event. There are no walls, no rubble, no indication that the event ever happened.

Uh, no, that would be totally wrong. "Archaeologists and other scholars" have "proved" no such thing. If you have evidence to support this claim, I would love to see it. Especially the part about there being "no walls, no rubble."

As David Zephyr (sensibly, IMO) says, it is more important to find truth in the Biblical accounts than to look for facts.

More important for whom? Christians, or secularists who like to say Jesus was a swell guy, while subjugating not one iota of their lives or worldview to the Christian faith? Most non-Christians really only ascribe any value to the message of Jesus Christ for one sentence alone: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Which is fine - but the reason behind it is ultimately self-justification on the part of the nonbeliever, and willful ignorance of the whole context of the life and ministry of The Christ.

Both Testaments provide insights into universal human dilemmas and the human condition... among other things. That is their value and that is their truth. Biblical literalists miss this, and so they usually miss the real message.

Uh, again, no, not really - the New Testament in particular is nothing more than the passionate claim that Jesus was The Christ, and was sacrificed to reconcile humanity with God, as well as observation by his closest confidantes on what that means to we mere mortals.

[LeahMira]

79. On this basis...

"Just could not have happened?" Which part, the crucifixion and resurrection? The public condemnation of Christ by the mob? All of it?

Sorry, I thought I made it clear when I said that the Jewish people of the time could not possibly have been responsible in any way for the death of Jesus. That could not have happened.

If you have evidence to support this claim, I would love to see it.

Google around and you will find both pro and con about Jericho. I was told by someone who studied and worked with Yigal Yadin.

Most non-Christians really only ascribe any value to the message of Jesus Christ for one sentence alone: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Rather a broad brush you paint us non-Christians with, don't you think?

... the New Testament in particular is nothing more than the passionate claim that Jesus was The Christ

I'm sorry that's all you see there. It's also the history of the beginning of a movement, a collection of letters and correspondence that gives insight into the thinking of the era and a record of the visions or dreams of a mystic... among other things.

[incontrovertible]

96. thanks for responding

here's mine.

Sorry, I thought I made it clear when I said that the Jewish people of the time could not possibly have been responsible in any way for the death of Jesus. That could not have happened.

So the story recounted in all four Gospels is a lie. Is that your position? Yes or no, please. If yes, then what merit does Christianity have whatsoever? It'd be a total fraud.

Google around and you will find both pro and con about Jericho. I was told by someone who studied and worked with Yigal Yadin.

And what exactly did Yigal Yadin prove? All of the archaeological accounts I've seen regarding Jericho have contended that it did exist, it has been found, its location is well known, it has been thoroughly excavated, it did have walls, the rubble from those walls is still there, and those walls did indeed collapse in ancient times while the city was still populated. I've googled the subject thoroughly and found no contention to the contrary originating from any study undertaken by Yigal Yadin or anyone else.

Rather a broad brush you paint us non-Christians with, don't you think?

It is the nature of the human mind to discern pattern from observation. That's why we can look at a barren rock on the surface of Mars and see a human face staring back at us. Virtually all of the non-Christians I've met, who express any appreciation at all towards Jesus of Nazareth, do so because of the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" statement (ignoring the "go and sin no more" admonition to the prostitute two verses later), and the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" beatitude. Recite about ninety percent of his other statements to them, however, and they usually recoil. "I am the way, the truth and the life - no man comes to the father but through me," for example. "If you have seen me, you have seen the father," for another. Those are right out.

I'm sorry that's all you see there. It's also the history of the beginning of a movement, a collection of letters and correspondence that gives insight into the thinking of the era and a record of the visions or dreams of a mystic... among other things.

If the story of Jesus Christ is a fraud, then those letters and correspondence are nothing more than the idiot ramblings of delusional idiots and lunatics, who believed so strongly that a man rose from the dead that they did not resist their own martyrdom. If you take the divinity out of Christ, that is, bluntly, all you are left with. Is it really your contention that some objective value that might be derived from insane people who died 2000 years ago, because they were so stupid and deluded they couldn't even figure out how to renounce the resurrection before being burned alive, crucified, fed to lions, sawn in half lengthwise from the crotch?

[LeahMira]

130. Must it be factual?

So the story recounted in all four Gospels is a lie. Is that your position? Yes or no, please. If yes, then what merit does Christianity have whatsoever? It'd be a total fraud.

I have mentioned before that there is fact and there is truth. The stories in the gospels do not contain a great deal of fact. They do contain a great deal of truth. If Christianity has merit, it lies in its understanding of the truth contained in the gospels.

I've googled the subject thoroughly and found no contention to the contrary

Hmmm... I looked quickly yesterday just for the heck of it and found one among the first five citations.

Virtually all of the non-Christians I've met, who express any appreciation at all towards Jesus of Nazareth, do so because of the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" statement (ignoring the "go and sin no more" admonition to the prostitute two verses later), and the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" beatitude.

Both of those statements are found, albeit in slightly different wording, in the sacred books of many of the religions that have sacred books (as opposed to those with oral traditions).

If the story of Jesus Christ is a fraud, then those letters and correspondence are nothing more than the idiot ramblings of delusional idiots and lunatics, who believed so strongly that a man rose from the dead that they did not resist their own martyrdom.

People have died for all sorts of beliefs throughout history. The fact that people are willing to die for them has no correlation whatsoever with the truth or value of the beliefs.

[incontrovertible]

150. in the minds of most believers, Yes.

I have mentioned before that there is fact and there is truth. The stories in the gospels do not contain a great deal of fact.

That is your opinion. As you are not a Christian, your opinion is irrelevant to the lives and understandings of believers. It's when non-believers such as yourself (and Paula Fredriksen) demand that the faith accept your conjectures as superior to the Gospel accounts - to the point of censoring a motion picture which is based on the Gospel accounts - that I have a major problem with your beliefs.

They do contain a great deal of truth. If Christianity has merit, it lies in its understanding of the truth contained in the gospels.

If you say so. To the faithful, Christianity's merit lies in the belief that Christ conquered sin, and thereby death.

Hmmm... I looked quickly yesterday just for the heck of it and found one among the first five citations.

And what did that citation say? Jericho did not exist? There were no walls? They did not fall? Please, tell me - I'm very interested. By all means, provide as many links as you feel inclined to offer - I welcome them, and swear on my faith I will read every one you provide.

Both of those statements are found, albeit in slightly different wording, in the sacred books of many of the religions that have sacred books (as opposed to those with oral traditions).

Please cite some of them for me - I'm interested in this as well. Not that it really matters to me, because just as you do not believe in the truth of Christianity, neither do I believe in Islam, or Hinduism, or Shintoism, or Animism. But regardless, please tell me which other sacred texts command the faithful to love their enemies, to the point of one's own death.

People have died for all sorts of beliefs throughout history. The fact that people are willing to die for them has no correlation whatsoever with the truth or value of the beliefs.

Can you please cite for me any example of a person willingly dying for something that they knew to be a lie? Because in the case of the 12 Disciples, all of whom were martyred, that is exactly what you are claiming that they did. Does it not stretch credulity in your mind that 12 relatively prosperous men, fishermen who owned their own boats and so forth, would abandon their homes, families and lives, wander the entire known world under constant threat, preaching what they knew to be a lie (that Jesus died, and rose from the dead), up until the point where they were seized and tortured to death? Wouldn't a sane person have given that up after a couple of months - or at least after the first two or three of their close friends were crucified, and took a nice two days to die? And if a sane person would have given that up, wouldn't the fact that they did not do so have proven the Disciples insane? And then, aren't we back to the previous question of: What value do the insane ramblings of 2000-years-dead lunatics really have?

Edit: I leave an original misstatement intact. There is no Biblical record of the martyrdom of all 12 disciples - there is only the traditional account that all except for John, author of The Revelation, were martyred. John was exiled to an island. I hold the traditional account superior to any suppositions to the contrary by anti-Christian scholars, however, this is only a point of faith. My original point, that all 12 Disciples abandoned prosperous lives in devotion to Christ, to the point of great peril and even death, remains.

http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN500APOSTLES%20FATE.htm

[regnaD kciN]

124. That depends on what the meaning of "is" is...

Sorry, I thought I made it clear when I said that the Jewish people of the time could not possibly have been responsible in any way for the death of Jesus. That could not have happened.

The Gospels do not claim that "the Jewish people of the time" (i.e. Jews as a whole) were responsible. They do claim that the Saduceean Temple leadership was part of a group seeking Jesus's execution; there is also the sense that a mob (probably raised by the aforementioned Saducees, much like the "spontaneous demonstrations" in Florida after the 2000 elections were shown to have been made up of Republican congressional aides) joined in calling for his death. But, even if they were acting independently, that could have been no more than one or two hundred Jews -- hardly a significant number out of all the Jews in Jerusalem, let alone all those in Israel proper.

However, you then seem to make the rather disconnected step from saying, not only that "the Jews" as a whole weren't responsible for the crucifixion, but that not even a single person who happened to be Jewish could have had anything to do with it. To me, that's completely illogical, not to mentioned unsupported by any evidence.

[David Zephyr]

80. Beautifully Spoken, LeahMira.

You write: "Biblical literalists miss this, and so they usually miss the real message."

I could not possibly agree more. In fact, Jesus did not have a scribe walking with him writing down every words he spoke. And cautioned about such literalists saying "you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." They don't see the forest for the trees.

Paul himself said as much as the same thing: "not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" 2Cor 2:13.

Thank you for lovely words.

[Dr Fate]

50. "hates jews" is a general, media quote...

...not meant to be your quote, just to clarify...It seems to be the media buzz that Mel gibson "hates Jews"...

As I said, I have not seen the movie, so I dont know if it's over the top with racism, or a generally faithful rendition of King James New testament Bible stories...

[David Zephyr]

81. Noted.

Thanks for the clarification, Dr. Fate.

[regnaD kciN]

123. Facts, please,not rhetoric...

Yes- you are right- By the time the Holy Roman Church got ahold of the canon, the emphasis in the story was shifted from Pilate to the corrupt Jewish clergy...

The Gospels in question were written long before there was a "Holy Roman Church," and there is nothing in a study of the ancient manuscripts to suggest that they were re-written post-Constantine.

I have not even seen the movie yet- does Mel actually stray very far from the King James Text?

I doubt he has anything to do with the KJV, which would be, to his mind, a "Protestant" (Anglican) translation.

By the way, please remember that the KJV is merely a 17th-century English translation, not a "revision" of the original texts.

[ThoughtCriminal]

40. Who killed Jesus?

I'm not a theologin, I don not play one on TV and I did not stay at Holiday Inn Express last night but...

Isn't the POINT of Christianity that Christ died for ALL our sins and that we (Humanity) are ALL responsible for his suffering. Wan't that the plan?

If you believe that Jesus died to atone for our sins this is a reason we should not sin - it adds to the suffering he endured.(assuming time, causality and sequence being meaningless in Heaven and Hell).

Just thinking out loud - the Roman vs Jew debate always seemed to miss the point to me.

[David Zephyr]

41. You Make Some Very Good Observations.

The forgiveness and mercy and compassion in Jesus' teachings are compelling and inspiring. They are to me, at least.

The debate, as you say "Roman vs. Jew" unfortunately has been pushed into public discourse once again by this insensitive film.

Christians should respect Jews by not paying to see this film. That would be most Christian in my eyes.

[regnaD kciN]

125. Actually...

Christians should respect Jews by not paying to see this film.

...I think that I should respect myself by not paying to see this film!

[David Zephyr]

138. Even Better.

Better said, JDWalley.

[incontrovertible]

43. on what do you base these contentions?

In fact the early Christians were little more than an off-shoot of the Jewish faith and relied on Jewish temples for their meetings.

So the detailed account of how Saul was a Pharisitic Inquisitor until he met the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus is just a flat-out lie? I don't recall a single Biblical account of the Acts of the Apostles being carried out anywhere near the established Jewish religious order, and unless I see a credible historical account that a single Christian sect ever held an assembly, post-crucifixion, in the Temple, I consider this claim to be flat wrong.

Beyond that, your basic premise is wrong. There were not synagogues and temples scattered about Judea, as there are throughout the world today - there was only one Temple, in Jerusalem. "One Temple for the One God," as the Herodic saying went. If you've read "From Jesus to Christ," or even seen the PBS series based on it, I would think you'd have caught that. The Levite priests and Pharisitic order would not have tolerated a single utterance of the supposed divinity of Christ anywhere near the Temple. They had handed the man over to the Romans for crucifixion as punishment for blasphemy!

The blaming of the Jews for the death of Jesus was a cowardly way to placate the Romans.

Joseph of Arimethea records several incidents of Pilate acquiescing to the demands of the Judean masses in order to maintain peace within his Province - the most famous example being his bowing to public pressure and removing Roman statuary from the Temple. The story of Pilate releasing Barrabas, rather than Christ, as part of the Passover tradition, due to the demands of the mob, is entirely credible. The ethnicity of that mob is immaterial to the Christian faith - if the house of David had been brought up in India, that crowd would have been Indian. If Abraham had been Gaellic, that crowd would have been full of Gauls. It doesn't matter - Christ wasn't crucified because a Jewish mob wanted him to be; he was crucified because mankind had fallen along with Adam, and so he was to serve as a blood sacrifice in the stead of mankind. The behavior of that mob was a foregone conclusion, and if the fact that they were Jewish bothers you, then just consider yourself, whatever your ethnicity, standing there in their place. That's the basic premise of Christianity - all are collectively guilty of having caused the torture and execution of the Christ.

Ultimately, if you reject the notion that the public condemnation of Christ ever even happened, and it's all just a fraudulent tale made up to cover the "fact" that the Romans just seized Christ and crucified him for the sheer hell of it, then what's the point of considering a single iota of the entire issue? If the progression of events agreed-upon by all four Gospels, and every Christian of any credible faith throughout History, is a lie, then the whole thing's a lie, and who cares? The supposition amongst "Christians" that the crucifixion and resurrection are symbolic myths is a radical departure from Christian doctrine that has surfaced in only the last twenty odd years, primarily raised by heretical Episcopalian bishops. Yes, "heretical" - one doesn't get to just rewrite dogma to suit one's own prejudices and imaginations and still be considered valid in terms of the base doctrine. Muslims don't get to do that, Hindus don't get to do that, Jews don't get to do that, and neither do Christians - that's why it's called a "religion." Protestants, in the eyes of Catholics, are heretics. Episcopalians who publicly claim that Christ was never crucified and resurrected, in the eyes of the rest of Christendom, are heretics. That's just the way it is.

Mel Gibson's film continues with this malicious tradition of blaming the Jews for killing Jesus

Again, "the Jews" didn't kill Jesus, mankind did. The story portrayed is the story as written. If that's a malicious tradition in your eyes, I have to question whether Christianity is the right choice for your worldview. If not a Gospel account, what source should a filmmaker use? One they just made up, a la "The Last Temptation of Christ?" A hopeless secularist account such as "From Jesus to Christ?" Why would you expect one to attempt to advocate for his faith by blatantly renouncing it? Should a filmmaker telling the story of Mohammed use the Jack Chick tract for his primary source?

If any Christian wants to truly get beyond the popular myths and read the best researched and scholarly work on this subject to my knowledge, then may I recommend Paula Fredriksen's "From Jesus to Christ. The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus."

I've only seen the PBS series. An accurate depiction of general Judean culture in the Herodic era, perhaps, but I found it a tiresome and predictable undermining of the core tenets of the Christian faith, operating from a purely secularist worldview whose ultimate aim is to disprove the divinity of Christ. Joseph Campbell did a much better job of it a couple of decades ago.

[David Zephyr]

85. You Need to Study Before You Preach.

How could you possibly make such a wildly false statement as: "There were not synagogues and temples scattered about Judea, as there are throughout the world today" when the Book of Acts and the Letters of Paul are replete with just the opposite.

Here's just a few places where you will find the Early Christians preaching at or near, but in the protection of the synagogues: Acts 6.9, 9:2, 13:5, 13:14, 13:42, 14:1, 17:1, 17:10, 17:17, 18:4, 18.7, 18:17, 18:19, 18:26. Synagogues all about the Eastern Mediterranean with the sanction of the Roman govenment, by the way. The Early Christians could have never launched their "off-shoot" without those synagogues...synagogues, not just in Israel either, by the way.

Also, I was not referring to the PBS television series which features some of Professor Fredriksen's views, but to her scholary book which she compiled while on the staff at Boston University. But if you found a capsulized television program "tiresome" then I doubt you'll be up for an academic book.

I don't want to put a millstone on your weak faith which is evidently timorous of inquiry, so I will leave you to "work out your own salvation" and wish you peace...and hopefully, for your sake, a more layered, rich, and textured appreciation of our humanity and the wonder and humility that comes with being able to question.

[incontrovertible]

87. Yes, fine

How could you possibly make such a wildly false statement as: "There were not synagogues and temples scattered about Judea, as there are throughout the world today" when the Book of Acts and the Letters of Paul are replete with just the opposite.

I find it interesting that you now intend to use Biblical text as a basis for anything, but regardless: I overstated my position. Clearly synagogues existed throughout the region. "Temples," however, as was your original contention, did not. There was only one Temple: The Temple in Jerusalem.

You are also guilty of overstating your own position, namely that early Christians were a mere offshoot of orthodox Judaism who "relied" on the resources ("Temples") of the orthodox religion "for their meetings," if I recall your statement correctly. In every one of the verses you cite from the book of Acts, the preaching done at the Synagogues by the Disciples was met with hostility, often to the point of violence, by the established Judaic order. The early Christians were not at all welcomed within the synagogues by the priests and elders, who repeatedly called them blasphemers. I cite the very same verses you list as evidence, and would welcome any similar evidence to the contrary you would care to present. The established order provided early Christians with the primary source of their converts, and nothing more.

Also, I was not referring to the PBS television series which features some of Professor Fredriksen's views, but to her scholary book which she compiled while on the staff at Boston University. But if you found a capsulized television program "tiresome" then I doubt you'll be up for an academic book..

If you read my commentary you'll note that I didn't find Joseph Campbell tiresome. Nor, for that matter, did I find C.S. Lewis tiresome, nor Saint Augustine, to cite a couple of others. Your attempted dispersion of my intellectual capabilities is unwarranted and devoid of evidence, like many of your extra-Scriptual analyses of the Christian faith.

I don't want to put a millstone on your weak faith which is evidently timorous of inquiry, so I will leave you to "work out your own salvation" and wish you peace...and hopefully, for your sake, a more layered, rich, and textured appreciation of our humanity and the wonder and humility that comes with being able to question.

"Rich" is an appropriate term. My faith is not "weak," sir, nor is it challenged or undermined by the selective cherry-picking that you apparently apply to its foundational scriptures. If this is your kiss off, then Christ be with you, but I'm not quite finished yet. I still have no idea what you base any of your opinions about the Christian faith upon other than your own imaginings, and those of various secular scholars for whom the non-divinity of Christ is a foregone conclusion.

[WoodrowFan]

129. HEAR HEAR!

Good answer. I never understood the venom with which some "Christians" attack any research into the early history of the Christian Church or the Bible by saying you are attacking their Faith. I mean, we're not exactly taking about the Jesus Seminar here. I thought "From Jesus to Christ" was interesting, well-reseached and well-argued.

For the recond, I am also a Christian and teach an adult Sunday School class at my church.

[David Zephyr]

136. Hey WF.

Thanks.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[regnaD kciN]

126. WHAT?????

I don't recall a single Biblical account of the Acts of the Apostles being carried out anywhere near the established Jewish religious order, and unless I see a credible historical account that a single Christian sect ever held an assembly, post-crucifixion, in the Temple, I consider this claim to be flat wrong.

You might want to check...I don't know...the Bible?

"And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy; and they were continually in the temple blessing God."
-- Luke 24:52-53

"Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved."
-- Acts 2:46-47

"And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease to teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah."
-- Acts 5:42


Joseph of Arimethea records several incidents of Pilate acquiescing to the demands of the Judean masses in order to maintain peace within his Province - the most famous example being his bowing to public pressure and removing Roman statuary from the Temple.

If you have any of the writings of Joseph or Arimethea, I'd sure like to see them! (As, no doubt, would virtually every historian and theologian in the world.) Don't you mean "Josephus" instead? A quite different person.


Christ wasn't crucified because a Jewish mob wanted him to be; he was crucified because mankind had fallen along with Adam, and so he was to serve as a blood sacrifice in the stead of mankind.

But what if Adam didn't exist? ;-)

Actually, by mentioning "a blood sacrifice in the stead of mankind," you bring up my main complaint with both the film and much of fundamentalism today -- the dependence on an Anselmian (named after Anselm of Canterbury, a twelfth-century English bishop) or "substitutionary" view of the atonement. Over the ages, there have been many theories of "what happened" at the crucifixion and resurrection. One of the oldest and longest held (the so-called Christus Victor theory of the atonement) maintained that Jesus, by both "sticking to his guns" in the face of the threat of death, and simultaneously refusing to use force and forgiving his executioners, was taking on all the powers of evil "on their own turf" -- thus, his resurrection showed that no evil in the world can triumph over God and his love.

Come the twelfth century, a more legalistic time, and Anselm came up with a more "logical" explanation for that time: By sinning, Adam and Eve caused God the Father to hate them, and not just them but their progeny, in other words, all humankind (it should be noted that this doctrine of "original guilt" makes sin a sexually-transmitted disease). The only way that God the Father would stop hating humankind and sending everybody to Hell would be if his honor was assuaged by God the Son substituting himself, and enduring every bit of the suffering that all humans, throughout the ages, rightly deserved (both because of their own sins and the sin they had inherited from being children of Adam and Eve). So, Jesus volunteered to "pay that price," and underwent the most torturous death possible (since, or course, it had to make up for the punishment of billions of people). Only after witnessing that "blood sacrifice" did God the Father's anger abate to the point that he was willing to let humans be "saved."

I must grant that this was certainly a more "logical" explanation for a time when feudalism was the norm and Christianity part of a whole church-state enterprise centered around an earthly king demanding unswerving obedience to his laws. However, to my mind, it makes absolute mincemeat of Christianity, basically turning two persons of the Trinity into two discrete Gods (or, to be more blunt, one brutal real God and one merciful demi-God) acting out a sort of cosmic "good cop, bad cop" routine with humankind. It means that all of Jesus's words about being "children of your heavenly father" by showing compassion are nonsense, since, according to this view, the Father is portrayed as scarcely compassionate -- in fact, as one who has to be placated by the blood of his son before he can think of giving up his hatred for all people. As a matter of fact, by Anselm's standard, there seems to have been little point to Jesus's earthly ministry at all, except to provoke enough opposition to get him killed -- the only purpose for Jesus, according to this theory, was simply to suffer and die. Finally, it's thoroughly inconsistent with the depiction of God in the Hebrew scriptures (the "Old Testament"). As one writer put it, it means that "Jesus died to save us from God."

This is clearly the view of the atonement held by Mel Gibson. In fact, he has been quoted as saying "To forgive human sin, there had to be a blood sacrifice." It is also, not coincidentally, the favorite among both traditionalist Roman Catholics and "Religious Right" fundamentalists -- two groups who seek to build a "City of God" in which a strict legal code enforces religious obedience with "the power of the sword." But, to put it bluntly, I think it is a medieval perversion of Christianity, and the faith would be far better off if it were relegated to the dustbin of history.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. No, the only complaints are from Foxman and the ADL

that's a fact

[Sam Lowry]

17. Who is Foxman?

Trust me, more people than your mysterious "Foxman" and the ADL are going to complain about this movie.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

19. the director of the ADL?

Did I misspell his name? sorry

[Sam Lowry]

27. Who knows?

I don't keep up with those guys. But watch the furor. I'm Jewish, and I didn't even like Jews by the end of that movie.

[Tinoire]

47. Do you mean what you wrote?

Did you not like the Jewish High Priests who were up to their neck in political intrigue (just like Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious
leaders today) and the crowd of rabble they roused to ensure that Barbbas was released instead of Jesus or did you not like Jews?

The priests and that crowd did not represent Jews. They were just a miniscule litte trouble-making slice. Why would they represent all Jews?

The kind women who wept as this happened were Jewish. The woman who wiped Jesus' face. The man who carried the cross when Christ was too weak. Joseph who gave his burial sepulcher and shroud because Jesus had none... What about all those people? Except for Pilate and his soldiers, all of the players are Jewish, the most noble, the flawed and the corrupt.

I haven't seen the movie. I hope you just mean that you disliked the people who persecuted Christ.

I should also point out that, at least in the Catholic faith, every offense we make against God & our brother is additional suffering on Christ. In my faith we are all responsible. No one escapes responsability for what took place. He died for ALL of us and because of ALL of us. Whether you believe he was the Son of God, God Himself, he was the greatest Jew who ever lived. Everyone should be proud and everyone should be ashamed.

[Sam Lowry]

51. Sorry, Tin

I didn't mean to be flippant, but I was making a joke. I agree with everything you wrote. The film is just a little... harsh. But good!

[Tinoire]

53. Whew!~ I lose my sense of humour sometimes & miss the subtleties

;)

I'm sure it's harsh which is one reason I really want to see it... a harsh nudge to remind me/us of a man who changed the world and what he willingly suffered to do so.

Peace

[Sam Lowry]

55. No problemo

You sound like you'd really like it. Like I said, I'm not religious, but it nearly blew my butt off. I think it's one of the most important films made in the last 30 years, and I'm quite a fan of film. Check it out when it comes to a theatre near you; you'll see exactly what I mean.

[Tinoire]

56. Let me ask- Does it portray Jesus as sweating blood

that night in the Gardens of Gethsemane? I am going to see the film but half-afraid to because I know what profound effect it's going to have on me and millions of other people who go see it.

No matter how many times you read the Gospels, or even the detailed accounts of the Saints who re-live the agony, you don't SEE it.

Technicolor stays with you. I'm a little afraid of that part for very selfish reasons but looking forward to it nonetheless.

Peace / Shalom and I look forward to reading you more. Caught you in another thread- you're very funny. Post-coital girl-friend... Kucinich... haha, very funny. I'm Kucinich's number 1 fan here (ok, so there are a few of us tied for that title) and I thought it was funny ;)

Peace & welcome :toast:

[Sam Lowry]

58. To be honest,

I don't remember. Given Mel Gibson's intent to be as true to the text as can be, it's possible. Especially considering that Jesus is basically covered in the red stuff from the word "go." Gesthemane happens in the very beginning of the movie, and everything is very dark.

Now you're getting me all excited about that movie again. What a movie! And for an areligious person like me, that's a feat. Prepare to be moved, and I mean that.

P.S. Thanks for the kudos, and back atcha.

[Tinoire]

60. Damn! You're in NY

Does NY have a monopoly on the cool witty ones?

Off to bed now... My pumpkin coach is already rotting...

Peace

And if you're ever in my part of sailing country (SF) and the movie is showing- we can go together!

[scarface2004]

18. thats exactly right...the jews are guilty!!!

mels got it right..we need to persecute the jews for what they did..and we need his movie to agitate more jew hatred!!!!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

21. I don't know if this movie is going to make people hate Jews

But it sure is bringing out the hatred of Christianity from a lot of people.

[bobbyboucher]

28. Please continue. How is this going to bring about

more hatred of Christians? More hatred of Jews I can see, but more hatred of Christians?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

70. just look at the threads here about it

Without people even seeing it, I've heard more anti-Christian slurs from people at DU since this film came out then ever - and for DU, that's a lot.

[Silverhair]

131. Try reading what he said, not what you think he said.

He said it is bringing "out" the hatred of Christianity aroung here. He did not say it is bringing "about" the hatred of Christianity.

[bobbyboucher]

30. Nice timing, Mel. Just what we need.

A gruesome depiction of the crucifiction of Christ.

Dare I say that I think that Jesus himself would disapprove?

[Sam Lowry]

32. Well...

Think what you want, but go see it. It's a pretty serious accomplishment. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[bobbyboucher]

35. I'll pass.

I don't need it. And I don't really think it is that much of an accomplishment.

[Sam Lowry]

I'm telling ya, man

I saw it. I was skeptical too. It's quite a piece of film-making.

[bobbyboucher]

39. Film making aside,

I'll just skip this for the sake of skipping it. I just don't think that I need it in any way. Perhaps you could convince me that I need to see the crucificion of Christ in all it wonderful, technicolor beauty, but I still think that I will pass.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you shouldn't have seen it or you shouldn't be promoting it. Even if I miss something extordinary.

Sorry for not giving a valid reason.

[Sam Lowry]

42. Fair enough

I'm a big film buff. It's an extraordinary movie.

[JasonDeter]

34. Why demean a whole lot of Christians?

I'm sure there are a lot of Christians who read this forum, why give them the idea that they a open to ridicule. Unless this forum thinks thats ok. Doesn't make good politics, in fact considering the number of Christians there are in the US, its very very bad politics. Democratic candidate will need all the votes he can get.

[bobbyboucher]

36. Who's demeaning Christians again?

"Christian" is a broad term.

[JasonDeter]

63. Well in the context you use it your demeaning a certain

kind of believer. But if it makes you happy hey eat drink and be merry!

[Djinn]

38. who demeaning who?

with the exception of possibly Mr Gibson himself, who's being demeaned here?

Unless you mean the few posts that state or infer a general distrust of religions and ancient texts? that's not demeaning, even if I state that all religions are a total wank and are simply structures of power invented by men that doesn't demean anyone in the same way that someone stating "Jesus saves" "Allahu Akbar" etc isn't demeaning me and my atheism. Each to his own

[JasonDeter]

62. Well if you must show your love for satan by demeaning Christians

more power to ya!!

[Bridget Burke]

66. Yes, we all love Satan here.

Once you've gotten up to 1000 posts, you'll receive your invitation to the secret black masses held for DU'ers--at the dark of the moon in major cities all over the USA. Clothing is optional & black candles will be burned. Know any virgins?

Ahem: I'm being sarcastic!!!

The film is a piece of entertainment. Poor little millionaire Mel is making himself a martyr. Christianity has inspired some great art through the centuries. I've read the Gospels; personally, I won't be spending my entertainment dollar on a piece of turgid, self-important crap.

[Djinn]

86. you're joking right?

:crazy:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

71. yes on both counts

"why give them the idea that they a open to ridicule. Unless this forum thinks thats ok"

Yes, and yes.

[JasonDeter]

76. Thats a sad thing too

Unfortunately I have seen anti-Christian to be the modus operanti on DU. Such a forum, which has the possiblility to be a force in America IS nullified because it allows ridicule to a major force in America, gives validity to the silly republican idea that they have the corner on religious truth and keeps Democrats who are Christian from posting their views on the issues confronting us today. Christians don't shove their religion down non believers throats here from what I've seen but the non believers revel in shoving ridicule down believers throats. Its sad and childish.

[Cat Atomic]

37. Does anyone remember the fake "protests" against

Legally Blonde?

The marketing people made up a fake activist organization that was supposed to be fighting against negative media depictions of blondes. They issued press releases and everything.

It got a little press, but people caught on pretty quick and it died.

Anyway- maybe they're doing something similar here. God knows the protests were the only reason anyone went to see The Last Temptation of Christ. People just don't flock to see god movies.

[Tinoire]

48. I think they're going to flock to this one

Every believing Christian out there is thinking "finally, an account that's true to the Gospels" with no Hollywood fluff or minimizing of the incredible sacrifice.

Film buffs will go for the art.

Every one who has any curiousity about what happened but couldn't sit through the 4 Gospels will go.

Every intellectually curious non-Christian who wants to really understand the Christian faith will go.

As will all the people who need to put in their 2 cents when the film is discussed.

In this case, there were no fake protests. The ADL is still making a lot of noise about it and hosting meetings to discuss tactics about what to do.

Just my take.

[LeahMira]

65. I don't know about that...

All the people who follow the perveyers old fashion and religious on tv will go see the movie in an attempt to show how much they love god.

A friend of mine is a Baptist and also a real estate agent. She tells me that when she is showing a house, a lot of times the potential buyer will ask where the nearest Baptist church is located. She is an active member of her church and she tells me that she is surprised to find that she never sees these faces in church after she has sold them a house in her own church's attendance area.

I work at a university and sometimes help out when prospective students come in with their parents. They frequently ask about the religious organizations on campus. Yet the religious leaders say that there are generally ten or so students who are active in their organizations and maybe fifty or so who participate at some minimal level, even though judging by the numbers of students who indicate a religious preference, there should be several hundred or even over a thousand who should be involved in the group.

I tend to think that people like to know that the resources are there for them, but when it comes to actually making use of the resources it's another story. I suspect that many folks will talk up this film, and even request that it show at a theater near themselves, but when it comes to actually going to see it the audiences will be a lot smaller than expected.

Anybody want to take a bet? :-)

[demodewd]

90. You're on

This movie has controversy written all over it...and the more people see it the more controversy there will be ..inducing more to see it.

[DrBB]

67. To get back to the original point: YES

Yes, that is EXACTLY what is so bogus and stupid and completely corrupt about the whole thing: Gibson started it. Well before anyone had criticized the flick he was acting all persecuted and saying "Jewish" critics and the PC Police were dumping on his movie cuz it was K-K-Kristian and they with their demon-infested souls couldn't stand it. So he had to go to the pee-pul with his Important Missage, else how could The Truth ever come out?

In fact there's no evidence of there having been any such lefty reaction before he started screaming about it. As Frank Rich pointed out, they couldn't have, because he was only screening it before carefully selected right-wing audiences and no Jewish leaders or non-conservative critics were invited.

Absolutely classic reichwing story-framing media-management of the "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes-or-no" variet. "When will the leftwing media stop persecuting Mel Gibson!!!" they cry. When did they START persecuting him, I'd like to know.

For MUCH more on this, google "Frank Rich" and "the Passion"--Rich had an article about this in the NYTimes back a ways that goes into exactly your point in some detail.

And now, we return you to the Christian/Agnostic wars, already in progress....

[noonwitch]

69. I want to see this movie

I think it will be interesting. I don't think that there is some conspiracy to prevent it's release-that's a tactic of the right, not the left, to protest.

[Dob Bole]

82. The trailer is here....

http://www.passion-movie.com/english/trailer.html

I think I want to watch this movie. Or at least download it.

[Tinoire]

109. Thanks. Too short but very enticing! n/t

[SaveElmer]

83. Aren't we jumping the gun here...none of us have seen it

Maybe we should reserve judgement until it is released. I know Mel Gibson is a bit nutty, but he has made some excellent movies, and he has worked with many of the hollywood actors we most admire for their politics (Danny Glover, Ron Howard, Rene Russo, Julia Roberts). If he is making a movie that expresses his own religious beliefs I don't really see anything wrong with that. If it is unfairly harsh in its portrayal of the jews, we can criticize it for that then...

[kendric]

84. Jews are the good guys too

I think the thing that every one forgets is that the 'good guys' portrayed in the movie (ie Jesus, the apostles, Mary, Joseph, et al) are all Jews as well. A point missed by most that are concerned about any negative portrayals. Christians weren't really considered 'Christians' until a while after Jesus's death.

kendric

[incontrovertible]

92. EXACTLY

This is not a point missed by anyone with any intellectual honesty whatsoever regarding the Gospels, or this little movie. The contention that the foundational story of Christianity has anything to do with anti-Semitism is a charge raised solely by those whose entire understanding of Christianity is in opposition to it. The fact that Christ, and all of his followers, were devout religious as well as ethnic Jews, holds no bearing on this opposition - all that matters is that they have yet another petty little issue over which to fling mud at Christ and his followers. And frankly, I think the main motivation behind it is that there are those who cannot stand the thought that there exists anyone who might make any sort of moral judgement on any behavior of which they either engage or approve.

Let me just say to them: Folks, I'm sorry. I'm sorry adultery and fornication are frowned upon by our faith. For all virtually any of us care, do whatever the hell you want. Believe whatever you like. Screw anyone, anytime, get drunk, whatever. It's okay - nobody's coming to stop you, or at least nobody you're ever going to meet on this site. Stop thinking we're all Ashcroft, because we're not. And for God's sake, stop assuming we're all a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic, illiterate neanderthals.

[PATRICK]

99. Hate has no logic

There were heated splits within the Early Christian community on Jewish tradition and newly converted pagans. The issue is very confused, but over the centuries you can get "Ben-Hur" written by a civil war general where the common prejudice reaches a point of fine madness. Namely that Ben-Hur breaks away from his cursed people, the same way that in the Gnostic heretic gospels women are given male sex organs to make them perfectly human in the afterlife.

You can't beat hatred and prejudice with points. Hate has its own logic separate from those necessary for living a normal life. It splits and breeds like cancer. Jews. Christians. Catholics. Atheists.

Try human. Humanity in general to put it kindly is insufficient to its best interests, both collectively and individually. No one is superior. Apparently, if Jesus is God, then He is caught up in the mess too.
People of good will should center on compassion and the virtues that go with unconditional love. Then when the divisive outbreaks of nutcases make multi-million dollar movies we won't help enrich them.

[incontrovertible]

102. response appreciated

You, I like also.

the same way that in the Gnostic heretic gospels women are given male sex organs to make them perfectly human in the afterlife.

EEEEEGH! E-GAD! So in the Gnostic understanding, Heaven == Hell?! Good Lord, that's about the most foul first-century dogma I've ever heard.

[Tinoire]

110. Hermaphrodites... From the book of Genesis

The Garden of Eden; Formation of Woman - (Genesis 2:4 - 25)

Genesis 2:18
<1>G*d, Master of all forces, purposefully thought – without effort

“Man will not continue to exist<2> as a lone hermaphroditic human being; <3>

I will make for him the<4> female helper as a separate person before him.” <5>

2:19
<6>G*d, Master of all forces, fashioned from the earth

all wild animals of the field,

and - from water<7> - all birds of the sky.

In anticipation of fashioning the separate female helper,<8> G*d first brought them before Adam<9>

to see what classifying name<10> he would give each one – in accordance with Adam’s insight into the animal or bird species’ essential nature,<11> which included identifying each animal’s and bird’s proper mate.

Any animal or bird species that Adam would classify by name as suitable to his human nature,<12> G*d would refashion it into a female human being.

2:20
Adam named every species of herbivore,<13> bird of the sky, and carnivore<14> of the field - according to its intrinsic nature;

however, for the name “man,”<15> Adam did not find from among them a suitable female that could be refashioned as a human female to stand before him as a separate person.

2:21
<16>As a result of Adam’s craving to find a suitable female helper, G*d, Master of all forces, caused man to fall into a deep sleep, and he slept;


G*d took one of man’s ribs and closed the flesh in its place.

2:22
G*d built the rib that He took had taken from Adam into a woman,


and He brought her to Adam.

2:23
<17>Adam expressed his own profound feeling of attachment to her:<18>


“Now I have found a female helper who is worthy of being called “man,” since she is a bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh;


she shall be called ‘Woman,’ because she was taken from man.”

2:24
Consequently,<19> Adam’s male descendents exhibit a similarly profound attachment to their wives:

A man leaves his close blood-relation bond to his father and mother

and bonds to his wife.

<20>The husband and wife bond as blood relations – more intense than his bond to his parents.<21>

2:25
Adam and Eve were both naked, yet they were not embarrassed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

<1> Verses 18 – 24 recount the sequence of events leading to G*d’s formation of Eve from Adam’s body. The verses can be divided into four sections:

1. G*d reveals his plan to fashion a separate female helper for man (verse 18).

2. G*d arouses man to crave a suitable female helper by having him name animals – and discover their unsuitability to become his female helpmate (verses 19-20).

3. G*d fashions woman from man’s own body (verses 21-22).

4. Adam expresses his profound feeling of attachment to Eve; this intense feeling becomes part of the male psyche forever (verses 23-24).

<2> As explained in Lecture Two (footnote 14), in the context of Creation, the Hebrew word “tov” means G*d’s ongoing support for the existence of objects or creatures in its completed form. Here, the Torah states G*d’s view of man’s present makeup: it is not “tov.” G*d will not support man’s continued existence in his present form. G*d will alter man’s original makeup. In the next footnote, Ramban describes man’s original makeup that G*d planned to change.

<3> Question: Earlier (Genesis 1:27), the Torah described G*d’s formation of “man” as male and female human beings; yet here, the Torah recounts woman’s formation as occurring only after man’s futile search for a female partner among animal life. It is unlikely that G*d originally fashioned man as a lone male that was incapable of procreation. All other animal life was fashioned originally in male and female genders for the purpose of procreation, and even plant life was fashioned with the ability to reproduce. What, then, was man’s original constitution?

Answer: The Oral Tradition (Talmud, Berachot 61a) relates that G*d originally fashioned man as a single-body hermaphrodite possessing male and female facial features that faced opposite directions. Genesis 1:27 records this original human makeup. Here, the Torah describes events that led to G*d’s division of man into separate male and female bodies.

http://www.jewishstudies.org/courses/bib5/samplelecture.htm


There's lots more out there if you search for Genesis and hermaphrodites. I'd never heard of the Gnostic conclusion though. Very interesting. Literaly fascinating. :)

[Sam Lowry]

111. Hey Tin!

Are we still talking about this? Yoink!

[Tinoire]

113. Yep! Haunting the same old grounds

caught a surf to 10.3 but now flying the full main and a 130!

:hi:

[Sam Lowry]

115. Well then check this out

I'm glad you saw a short trailer. Go here:

http://homepage.mac.com/mapresents/cc.htm

and watch Trailer #1. You may need to update your Quicktime, as I did, but it's worth it. This trailer gives you a better clue as to how big this movie is. It gave me goosebumps watching it again.

Sam

[Tinoire]

116. Ooooww,,,

And now it's off to bed... Stations of the Cross were never this vivid. That is HUGE! Just ripped my throat out...

Peace to you and good-night :)

On edit: I think I'm going to be spending less time on DU and more time getting ready for this film... Reading up & researching I mean. Thanks... Will read that site tomorrow...

On edit: Hooked.... Just watched trailer 3... Have a feeling it's going to be sleepless night now.... Think I will read Matthew & John... relevant chapters. owwwww

[Sam Lowry]

117. Okeedokee

See ya whenever.

[Tinoire]

118. Have to work in the morning...

I still haven't found a way to get DU to pay my rent. I keep trying but no dice ;)

Good-night... and see you around

[PATRICK]

134. Gospel of Thomas?

Starts out interestingly enough with a different philosophical spin than the orthodox. Actually the seventies' feminsts sort of liked the egalitarian unisex thing- in theory at least.

[Tinoire]

98. Thank you. I tried to point that out earlier

but in addition, just in case anyone says "But those are all Jews who converted", there were plenty more who did not convert and are portrayed very well.

A small group does not an entire people smear.

As a Christian, I take NO responsability for what Pat Robertson, Jack Van Impe, Tim LeHaye, and Ralph Reed cook up. It doesn't work that way.

[GreyV]

88. Funny...

If Mel had made a insulting or a offensive movie regarding non-Christian or non-jewish individual there would be no such brouhaha. There are at least two quite offensive US based movie projects being worked on right now regarding Islam and life of prophet Mohamed. (plus another British one)

Sweet art of hypocrisy.

[Bridget Burke]

114. What movie projects?

Are they listed at IMDB.com? I'd be interested in reading more.

I'm not particularly interested in Mel's movie because it sounds bloody, turgid & pretentious to me. (Ecstatic reviews might change my mind.) Besides, I know how the story ends; I read the book.

However, your message implies the opposition to the movie is part of The Great Jewish Plot to Rule the World. The news has not been so much that there were critics, but that poor little Mel is complaining about having critics. There's no such thing as bad publicity. (Well, there was Gigli.)

[marigold20]

89. I don't plan to see it

First of all, as has been noted, I know how it ends. That's why I didn't see Titanic or Schindler's list. But, I've heard about the lengthy, gruesome scenes. I just don't need to see anymore blood and torture. Does anyone know how the film is rated? I can just see fundies dragging their young children to this - ugh.

[Tinoire]

100. I believe it's rated R

Maybe it's because I'm not a fundie but if I would take any child over 12 to see this film. It is the basis of the Christian faith and it wouldn't hurt especially Christians, who say they believe, to vividly see with their own eyes, the Passionate love Jesus had for humanity, to willingly go through that to redeem us from Adam's sin & to start thinking about their faith.

Christian faith is a little more than subscribing to the idea that Jesus was some kind, loving Bohemian preacher. He was flesh and blood while on earth and suffered greatly to redeem us from Adam's sin. You can not be a real Christian if you ignore this sacrifice and our part in the bargain- it's the foundation of our faith. Mel's movie is nothing but a vivid reminder of that Passion- we forget it too often.

[incontrovertible]

101. You, I like.

157 words of pure brilliance. Thank you. I hope you're spiritually prepared to be pilloried as an anti-Semite, or racist, or homophobe, or at best an idiot, if you should make any public statement resembling the above a few weeks from now. That is, unfortunately, shaping up to be the nature of this imminent cultural tidewater. There will be those who appreciate the film for its religious significance, those who appreciate it as a work of art, and vast numbers of those who despise it on a gutteral level. It will be curious to see which faction prevails in the court of public opinion.

[Djinn]

103. and there will also

be those who couldn't give a stuff one way or another - much like the millions in the world who think all religions are equally based on fairy stories and equally contradictory in their teachings/interpretations.

[incontrovertible]

108. You are correct

but the (probable) majority who won't care one way or the other will not make for good TV. I think we're in for something of a ride on this one.

[Tinoire]

112. Whooa! I hope not!

Glad you like me but I hope you're wrong on the rest! I have more faith in my fellow Leftists than that! We've all been pilloried for less anyway :) On all sides... For all various beliefs.

If time proves you right, then we're doomed because that will mean that there is no tolerance and without tolerance, we're lost.

I would gladly go see a film based on an accurate, per the Koran, depiction of Mohammed's life. The same with any Old Testament figures. The problem is no on wants to make those.

I look forward to hearing all the opinions on the film- from those who will have seen it...


You know, my mother always taught me that you should never discuss religion and politics. Look at us all! And on a political discussion board during religiously charged times. This topic is not going away.... I hope we all deal with it wisely.


Peace

[Bridget Burke]

137. Actually, a film was made about Mohammed

Fairly recently....

Islam forbids representing the Prophet's face (something to do with icon worship), so the film shows lots of shots of him from behind, crowd reaction, etc.

The Old Testament has lots of good tales. Lot & his daughters, for example. True old-time family values.

Anyway, I fail to see why the Crucifixion was such a bad thing. Didn't He have to die to remove Original sin--our heritage of Adam & Eve?

[Tinoire]

147. Yes but how accurate was it? My point has to do with accuracy to the

Holy Books.

Take the Ten Commandments. What is a love intrigue with the Pharaoh's daughter doing in it? Hollywood is notorious throughout the world for not being able to stick to the damn story.

Now a discussion about the crucifixion being a bad thing is an entire other discussion that would be totally irrelevant to the movie.

It's also loaded and way, waaaaaay over my head :)

[regnaD kciN]

127. As a filmmaker and a Christian...

...I someday want to do a film version of Christopher Moore's Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. I suspect it would be a lot truer to Christ than Gibson's "blood sacrifice" orgy.

[GabysPoppy]

128. Response

Not a response to any individual poster above but a response to everyone that reads this thread. I am not a biblical scholar nor am I a Torah scholar. I cannot nor will I try to refute anyone's interpretation of the Bible. They are opinions and beliefs and as such must be respected. But I want to relate my own experiences with this subject.

As a nine year old boy I remember walking to Hebrew School. At least once a week either arriving or leaving the Synagogue I was taunted by other kids with these words. "hey Jew boy why did you kill Christ". I don't know if I even knew who Jesus Christ was in those days. But the vehemence and angry nature of the taunts scared the shit out of me. One day I asked my best friend at the time, Jimmy who lived in the apartment across the hall from me what this all meant. Jimmy came from an Orthodox Greek family but I didn't ask him because of his religion. I asked him because he was my friend and the one person I played with everyday. Here was his answer. "That's crazy, you weren't around in those days, you couldn't have done it".
Think about that answer for awhile. It wasn't meant as a scholarly response nor was my question scholarly asked. It was just two buddies talking who rode bikes together and flipped baseball cards everyday. But hidden in his answer was an indication that his religious learning experience up to that point had hidden that thought. To Jimmy I wasn't "that Jew boy", just his best friend. As a note to add, this didn't take place in a backward place in the middle of nowhere. This took place in New York City.

It has taken many generations for that notion to lose it's place in everyday society. Now it's ugly head will start to rise again. I don't mean among people found at DU or like places where the intellectual level is so much higher than the rest of the country. It will rise in places where the intelligence quota is not like it is here. That is why you see and hear people like Abraham Foxman shout out about this film. That is why, shame on theologians who don't see the whole picture and only talk about how scripture proves them right. This picture isn't going to be stopped from being released. It is just too bad that viewing can't be limited to people over 21 years old and with an IQ above 125. The suggestion of taking children to view this film is only going to create another generation of kids who will taunt another Jewish boy with the words "hey Jew boy, why did you kill Christ".

That may be the saddest reality of them all.

[Red State Rebel]

140. Have you seen the movie?

From what I've been told by people who have seen it, it isn't an anger at Jews, but an anger at the particular characters in the Sanhedrin at the time are the ones who people are angered at in the movie....not Jews in general.

I hate to hear of the harassment you suffered - it is dispicable. In our church (evangelical christian) we are taught that the Jews are God's chosen people and blessed are those who pray for peace in Jerusalem.

[regnaD kciN]

153. I think you're giving Gibson too much credit...

It has taken many generations for that notion to lose it's place in everyday society. Now it's ugly head will start to rise again.

FWIW, there are still many, many retellings of the Holy Week stories that portray the Jewish authorities as being primarily to blame for the crucifixion. For that matter, the Gospel accounts themselves are quite hard on the Temple Priests and the Sanhedrin, and most church-going Christians hear at least one of those accounts each Holy Week. But they don't cause people to lash out in anti-Jewish attacks anymore...because most Christians, over the last half-century, have come to realize the horrors of anti-semitism and the part Christians of the past played in spreading such hatred, and have come to see the events in a new light. Even those, like myself, who are unable to go so far as to buy the claim that the Romans and only the Romans were responsible (with no Jewish person whatsoever having done anything to help bring about Jesus's death) still perceive the difference between claiming that some among the Jewish authorities were involved, and claiming that all Jews, past and present, are guilty. As a matter of fact, even among those groups that have been accused of "anti-semitic" actions (such as the Southern Baptists, who still believe that they have to convert all Jews to Christianity), you will never find the belief that all Jews bear some sort of collective guilt as "Christ-killers."

Such a notion of Jewish collective responsibility is a thing of the past among Christians. If this is true even in regard to Scripture, what makes anyone think that people are going to go see Mel Gibson's film (which is, after all, only a movie, not a volume of sacred writings) and suddenly decide that not only Caiaphas and Annas are bad guys, but so is every Jew alive today? There may be many reasons to oppose the way The Passion tells the story, but to think that it will single-handedly usher in a new era of oppression against Jews is wildly unrealistic.

[GabysPoppy]

154. You forget one simple truth

The majority of people that see this movie will not have your intellectual capacity. Also the many who do have this ridiculous agenda in their background will "use" this film to solidify those beliefs.

Keep in mind that over 1/3 of the people in this country think dubya is doing a "good job" and should be reselected. No where did I say that this film will "single-handedly usher in a new era of oppression against Jews", but I will say it will take more years to put the final nail in that ugly coffin.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

143. Who cares - it's just a movie

People on either side are just fueling the controversy - who f-ing cares. Either you watch the movie and like it /watch it and don't like it/ or don't watch it. MAN!

[adamrsilva]

144. I think the furor is ridiculous

Let's cut this PC nonsense. There were Jews who were complicit in Jesus' murder and plenty of Jews too happy to see him go. This isn't anti-semetic, however. The point is that *humanity* killed Jesus, not the Jews. The problem lies with people who think otherwise, but I've seen no evidence to suggest Gibson does, and what I have seen is a lot of overly-sensitive Jewish and Christian people judging this movie before they've even seen it. For every person who says it is anti-semetic, there are 10 who say otherwise.

And to the original post's question, yes, I believe people like O'Reilly keep bringing this up to reinforce the idea that liberals are anti-Christian.

[incontrovertible]

151. agreed

I believe people like O'Reilly keep bringing this up to reinforce the idea that liberals are anti-Christian

Agreed. Transparent ploy.

It's true that many liberals are non Christian, and many arch-leftists are anti-Christian in their words and thoughts.

It's equally true that many conservatives are "Christian" in name and words only, while at the same time virulently anti-Christian in thought and deed.

[stanwyck]

149. Playing the victim as publicity

campaign. Mel hasn't spent 30+ years in show business for nothing. He was sceaming about unfairness before anyone had actually seen anything or said anything. It's his way to drum up interest. Mel has no talent as an actor or director. But he does know how to pomote himself.