|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Passion Of The Christ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
I think it's antisemitic garbage, pushed by a fringe Catholic, with zero claim to historical accuracy. What do you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
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:Go read something. Your naive ignorance disgusts me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
The thing is, the ONLY thing that you have a passion for bashing and shredding seems to be the question of whether God became man and visited this planet.
Do you know how to read?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
I read books on a regular basis.
Good, but that was not my point. If you had taken the time to read through the various threads on this site, you would have found that my participation is far from limited to "Jesus". In fact, I find the NT to be rather banal. I'm far more interested in the Tanach and Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Your ad hominem attack was simply and precictably not very good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
To tell the story of Jesus, killed by the people he came to save, yet forgiven for it, how could you not include the people who killed him? If it wasn't the ancient Jews, it would have been someone else.
Have you been paying attention? How interesting it is that you focus on "the ancient Jews" and say nothing about the Romans. Why do you think you told "the story of Jesus" the way you did? How many "ancient Jews" killed Jesus? A dozen? A hundred? A thousand? Was it "a few Jews", or "some Jews" or "the ancient Jews"? You come here, having done zero research, and present yourself as the voice of reason. In fact, in your own naive and transparent way, you symbolize the problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Your railing against the generalization of jesus' killers, godsmac is mearly pointing out that his killers would invariable be the people in his environment.
No, he was pointing out the Jesus was killed by "the ancient Jews". What do you think? Do you agree with this statement? [This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 02-24-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Jesus himself forgave them while he was still hanging on the cross.
Perhaps we should move this to a different thread, but on what grounds do you believe this to be the case? Luke is presumed to be a late 1st century production, authored half a century after the purported event, by an apologist who witnessed nothing. The Passion story is a confused second hand account lacking in credibility and wholly devoid of evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
But I do not claim that the Bible is a scientific treatise. ... A film based on a matter of Faith is obviously not scientific in nature. So why demand evidence?
Got it. If your heart tells you that "the ancient Jews" did it, why worry about a lack of evidence? And if the stories were being formulated at a time when it made perfect sense to appease the Romans and demonize the Jews, why give credence to such a context? And if the story has a long, incendiary history of promulgating antisemitic attacks, why should anyone let that disturb their Christian heart? Let's just close our eyes and open our heart to the blood and gore of Gibson's Passion. Perhaps next week we can gather again and talk about how Cristians killed Martin Luther King.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
The story hardly promulgates antisemitic attacks. Granted, bad people and some bad Christians in the past have promulgated antisemitic attacks in the name of the Bible, but they were wrong.
Really? OK. Let's see if we can agree who some of these "bad people and some bad Christians" were:This is, of course, only a partial list. Let me ask you a question: have you ever read anything on the history of pogroms? Perhaps you would benefit from reading
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
We will NOT have the scriptures reduced to the opinions of men. The scriptures are inerrent.
You have no reason to presume that they were ever anythine else. By the way, I notice that, as you wallow in faith, you studiously avoud comment on the content of Carroll's book and the other items quoted. It's as if this capacity to tread holy water increases ones capacity to ignore/condone antisemtism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
We are not talking about [i]"some who profess"[i]. We are talking about a foundation of Christianity over some 15 centuries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
But you may have glossed over or missed the main point of the article--that a passion play may be used as a tool for anti-Semitic propaganda.
I suggest that the most reasonable reading of the Passion narrative suggests it to be a largely fictive legend layered with anti-Judaism, i.e., a story molded at a time when the Jerusalem cult had been defeated and replaced by the gentile mission of, first Paul, and then John, a time when these Christians were developing the pervasive and vitriolic hatred of the Jews that would later be codified as referenced above, and a time, between Masada and bar Kochba, when targeting the Jews, raher than Pontius Pilatus, made good tactical as well as dogmatic sense.
But you cannot wrap all Christians up into a group of anti-Semites because of the actions of some.
Of course not. Where have I done so? [This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 02-26-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
The book didn't gain real importance until around the middle of the second century when Christians were really beginning to seperate themselves as a different entity, rather than as a Jewish faction. That said, this movie is really Mel's interpretation of the Gospel of John and then some. ... AS for the anti-semitism. I didn't see it. Plenty of people call for Jesus to be saved and spared. Yes there is a mob mentality that is portrayed but I think that is how it was set up. I also didn't see any Jews taking delight in the beatings. If anyone took delight, it was the Romans. Pilate may be portrayed as weak but it doesn't mean that anti-semitism gets passed on to Jews.
There are really three issues surround the film. Is the narrative historically accurate? Is the narrative potentially incendiary? Is the narrative portrayed by Gibson in a manner to maximize its incendiary effect? Taken in reverse order ... 3. It's impossible to know Gibson's intent. It is clear, however, that he paints his characters in such a way as to maximixe the nature of the crime, minimize Pilate's culpability, and focus of the Jewish leadership as the most despicable force behind the crucifixian. 2. Clearly, yes. 1. I believe that most scholars would argue that the Passion narrative was written and redacted during the period bracketed by Masada and bar Kochba. It was, as you suggest, a period characterized by the victory of the Gentile Mission over the Jerusalem church, a period that resulted in the pervasive anti-Jewish vitriol that later resulted in a whole serious of antisemitic measures. The narrative, with its progression from Mark to John, has all the qualities of legend creation/embellishment at a time when hatred of the Jews was endemic to the movement, while painting Pilate as a sympathetic figure in the clutches of a Jewish conspiracy could only serve to appease Rome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
I clearly saw a plausible story that I believe did happen.
You saw a long-haired Jesus speaking Latin, a pervasively evil and manipulative High Priest (those damn rich Jews are behind everything), and a weak and thoroughly sympathetic Pilate. That you found this "plausible" says a great deal more about you than anything else.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024