|
Author
|
Topic: The Passion Of The Christ
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.1
|
|
Message 1 of 71 (88010)
02-22-2004 4:30 PM
|
|
|
As some of you may know, Mel Gibson has made a new movie. It is somewhat controversial, and as of this date, I have not yet seen it. Here is what http://www.passion-movie.com/english/ has to say about it: THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is a vivid depiction of the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ's life.
Sometime around the year A.D. 30, in the Roman province of Palestine, an obscure Jewish carpenter named Jesus of Nazareth began to teach publicly and to proclaim the coming of a 'Kingdom of God.' For centuries, the Jewish people had expected the appearance of a promised deliverer known as the Messiah --a figure who would restore their ancient dignity, and free their sacred homeland from all evil and despair. In the minds of many, Jesus appeared to be this Messiah. Surrounded by a core group of twelve disciples, Jesus began to attract a massive following from among the common people of Galilee and Judea, who eventually praised him as their Messiah and King. However, Jesus also had many enemies in Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin, a governing senate composed of the leading Jewish priests and Pharisees, conspired to put Jesus to death.
With the aid of Judas Iscariot, a member of Jesus' own inner circle, the Sanhedrin succeeded in arresting Jesus, handing him over to the Roman secular authorities on unsubstantiated charges of treason against Rome. Although Jesus consistently maintained that his Kingdom was a heavenly and spiritual one, the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, faced with the possibility of a riot, ordered that Jesus be taken outside the city and crucified as a common criminal. As the movie is coming out this Wednesday, I want to hear from some of you who either have seen it or have read reviews...biased and otherwise. Again, as always, Truth trumps Intelligence! 
|
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6259 days) Posts: 392 Joined: 05-28-2003
|
|
|
Message 2 of 71 (88033)
02-22-2004 8:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
02-22-2004 4:30 PM
|
|
I think it's antisemitic garbage, pushed by a fringe Catholic, with zero claim to historical accuracy. What do you think?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Phat, posted 02-22-2004 4:30 PM | | Phat has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 3 by phil, posted 02-22-2004 10:35 PM | | ConsequentAtheist has not replied | | | Message 21 by godsmac, posted 02-23-2004 9:44 PM | | ConsequentAtheist has replied |
|
phil
Guest
|
Oh, come on. At least try to act like you have your own opinions and you're not completely influenced by the media. Unless you have already seen the movie (and the chances are extremely low that you have), then how can you judge it one way or another? Keep in mind I'm not supporting the movie here. I haven't seen it yet, so it wouldn't make sense for me to have any opinion on it one way or another. I admire Mel Gibson for perservering all this controversy to produce something so important to him, though. If it turns out The Passion IS anti-semitic, then I won't support it, but I hope that isn't the case.
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6517 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
|
Message 4 of 71 (88049)
02-22-2004 11:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by phil
02-22-2004 10:35 PM
|
|
Ya, I think this thread may be a bit premature. I will be seeing this movie on Wednesday with my family. I am not a christian, but I don't hate christianity. I actually like the story, it's dramatic, philosophical, and rather epic. I think it caould make a great film if done right. I am actually hopping that the movie does endevor to be realistic and historicaly accurate. I hope it has no 'sappy' apeals to modern fundamentalist dogma, and indeed paints it as it was (or would have been if it was at all ). Anyhow... I'll post my opinions on the film after wednesday sometime.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by phil, posted 02-22-2004 10:35 PM | | phil has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 5 by toff, posted 02-22-2004 11:40 PM | | Yaro has replied |
|
toff
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 5 of 71 (88050)
02-22-2004 11:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by Yaro
02-22-2004 11:24 PM
|
|
How could the movie be called historically accurate (or inaccurate)? We have virtually no historical data on what actually happened. Outside of the gospels (whose historical accuracy is questionable), there are NO records of the trial, NO records of the lead-up to it, NO records of the execution... I expect - and believe, from what I've read - that the movie will be accurate as far as being a faithful retelling of the gospel stories; however, just how historically accurate this is, nobody knows.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by Yaro, posted 02-22-2004 11:24 PM | | Yaro has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 02-22-2004 11:55 PM | | toff has not replied | | | Message 7 by Yaro, posted 02-22-2004 11:55 PM | | toff has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 6 of 71 (88051)
02-22-2004 11:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by toff
02-22-2004 11:40 PM
|
|
Not enough real history
That is a bit of the point a theologian was making on CNN today. If you made a movie of what was in the gospels it would be all done in a few minutes. The rest is a combination of added stuff with no history behind it and picking and choosing from what is in the different gospels. One thing they were worrying about was that movie goers would think that this is history. "It is as it was" - kind of thing. The Jewish representative was concerned about how the Jews were portrayed. I'll probably wait for the DVD to see it an I guess I'll have to reserve judgement until then. My daughter might be interested as she did have a short term interest in comparative religions a couple or so years ago.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by toff, posted 02-22-2004 11:40 PM | | toff has not replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6517 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
|
Message 7 of 71 (88052)
02-22-2004 11:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by toff
02-22-2004 11:40 PM
|
|
It is totaly possible to be historicaly acurate. There is plenety of data as to how things were in that region, at that time. 'Gone With the Wind' was historicaly accurate, it never happend. Dig?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by toff, posted 02-22-2004 11:40 PM | | toff has not replied |
|
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6259 days) Posts: 392 Joined: 05-28-2003
|
|
|
Message 8 of 71 (88096)
02-23-2004 6:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by Yaro
02-22-2004 11:55 PM
|
|
quote:
We already knew that Gibson's efforts to be "as truthful as possible" (his own words in the Times) would be frustrated by the best sources that he had to draw on, namely, the Gospels themselves. Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, whose texts were composed in Greek between 70 C.E. and 100 C.E., differ significantly on matters of fact. In Mark, Jesus's last meal is a Passover seder; in John, Jesus is dead before the seder begins. Mark and Matthew feature two night "trials" before a full Jewish court, and a dramatic charge of "blasphemy" from the high priest. Luke has only a single trial, early in the morning, and no high priest. John lacks this Jewish trial scene entirely. The release of Barabbas is a "Roman custom" in Mark, a "Jewish custom" in John. Between the four evangelists, Jesus speaks three different last lines from the cross. And the resurrection stories vary even more. - see THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO GIBSON
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by Yaro, posted 02-22-2004 11:55 PM | | Yaro has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 10 by Yaro, posted 02-23-2004 10:50 AM | | ConsequentAtheist has not replied |
|
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6259 days) Posts: 392 Joined: 05-28-2003
|
|
|
Message 9 of 71 (88103)
02-23-2004 7:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by phil
02-22-2004 10:35 PM
|
|
Oh, come on. At least try to act like you have your own opinions and you're not completely influenced by the media. Unless you have already seen the movie (and the chances are extremely low that you have), then how can you judge it one way or another?
I really despise blatant ignorance. There is little about the script, Gibson, and Gibson's fringe religious beliefs that is unknown. Maybe you should learn something before embarrassing yourself, beginning with the antisemitic history and consequences of the "Christ-Killer" claim.
I admire Mel Gibson for perservering all this controversy to produce something so important to him, though.
Does this include admiration for the following?
quote:
We are Roman Catholic professors who were part of an ad hoc group of scholars recently called together by expert staff members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Anti-Defamation League to review a version of the screenplay of the Mel Gibson film, The Passion. ... The Emmerich work contains such extra-biblical elements as:- Jesus' cross being constructed at the orders of the high priest in the courtyard of the Temple.
- Servants of the high priest bribing fellow Jews to demand Jesus' death and even paying some of his crucifiers.
- Violence far beyond what the gospels present during Jesus' hearing before Caiaphas and Annas.
- Pontius Pilate criticizing the high priests for physically abusing Jesus and suggesting that they are thirsting for both his body and blood (cf. John 6:53).
- Scenes of the brutalizing of Jesus not present in the gospels, such as Jewish figures dragging him around with a bag over his head so that it violently impacts against stone.
- Pilate stating that he fears the high priest is planning a revolt against Rome.
Numerous other scenes not present in the New Testament could be cited from the Emmerich book, but those noted here all have the effect of increasing the guilt of Jewish characters for Jesus' sufferings. It would not be an exegetical theory to criticize any dramatic presentation of the death of Jesus that incorporated such non-biblical features. - see Dramatizing the Death of Jesus
Go read something. Your naive ignorance disgusts me.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by phil, posted 02-22-2004 10:35 PM | | phil has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 11 by Yaro, posted 02-23-2004 10:54 AM | | ConsequentAtheist has not replied | | | Message 15 by phil, posted 02-23-2004 4:52 PM | | ConsequentAtheist has not replied | | | Message 17 by Phat, posted 02-23-2004 8:32 PM | | ConsequentAtheist has replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6517 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
ummm ya? So? The same general story remains intact. It can still be told. There is nothing to stop people from doing research into ancient Isreal and paint an accurate picture as to how things would have been. Gladiator never happend, it was a historicaly acurate film (well not really...  ) But anyhow, Im not disagreeing with you.
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6517 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
CA, With all due respect, no one has seen the movie yet. How do you know these sceens even made the final cut? [This message has been edited by Yaro, 02-23-2004]
|
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 12 of 71 (88134)
02-23-2004 11:50 AM
|
|
|
I'm just curious as to why Gibson decided to have the movie in Aramaic and not Greek. Didn't he do a thorough job of research?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 13 by Yaro, posted 02-23-2004 1:22 PM | | MisterOpus1 has replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6517 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
Ya, he obviously did. They didn't speak greek in that region, or latin, arabic, hebrew, etc. The common tongue was Aramaic. The bible was pend in greek yuears latter, but some of the origional Aramiac manuscripts still survive. Checkout the Wikipedia: Aramaic - Wikipedia
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by MisterOpus1, posted 02-23-2004 11:50 AM | | MisterOpus1 has replied |
|
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 14 of 71 (88157)
02-23-2004 1:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by Yaro
02-23-2004 1:22 PM
|
|
quote:
Ya, he obviously did. They didn't speak greek in that region, or latin, arabic, hebrew, etc. The common tongue was Aramaic.
The bible was pend in greek yuears latter, but some of the origional Aramiac manuscripts still survive.
Ahh, thanks. My apologies. In my head I was mixing up translation vs. actual native language. I think it has been argued before which translation was actually first, and I believe Greek appeared to have a stronger case, but that's off-topic, so I'll not go down that road.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by Yaro, posted 02-23-2004 1:22 PM | | Yaro has not replied |
|
phil
Guest
|
Okay, so now I am naive for suggesting that you actually see the movie before you pass judgment on it? Or am I naive for implying that the media has influenced your opinions on the movie (since you obviously have not yet seen it)? Also, it is funny that you call me ignorant despite the fact that neither of us have seen the movie. Unless, then, you are referring to the history of antisemitism, meaning you have no basis for your claim. I realize the consequences of labeling Jews as the killers of Christ, and the suffering of the Jewish people because of this. Finally, for some reason, you list off extra-biblical elements featured in The Passion that may be viewed as antisemitic. Keep in mind, I am in no way supporting the movie. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET. I do not have admiration for antisemitism on the part of Mel Gibson, but I do admire the fact that he used his own money to produce something so important to him amidst all this controversy. If it turns out The Passion is undeniably antisemitic, then it's safe to say I will not have much admiration for him, though.
|
™ Version 4.2