"The Passion"'s dirty little secret
 

Wow the visuals look great on the trailers/clips I have seen. But, something is missing. The scenes with people actually talking. I wonder why all the clips circulating do not show anyone talking?

Could it be that it is because this movie is going to be presented in Ancient Arabic ???


I know that Mel Gibson is a member of the New Reformed Catholic church, they perform their masses in latin, but why would you make a movie in a language that less than 1% of the potential audience could understand? WTF!!!

Because Mel Gibson is not that bright...

Because he can Taur... Because he can!

Not too bright?

Why is that?

I think that if it is indeed in another language, it will add to the mood of the film, essentially making it better to watch.

I'd rather have it in an ancient language than have them speak with a Brittish accents (Jesus of Nazareth)

Look at it as an artistic decision, not one to please the masses. Hell, if that was the case, Jesus would look like a white guy at a fish concert.

I knew it was going to be in Aramaic since about September, not sure how that is much of a secret?!?

Dola


I wonder how long til the ACLU claims this film is Anti-Semitic

I don't know about the ACLU, but there have been many other groups that have already made that claim.

Side note....

I watched ESPN today and they showed a car in the Daytona 500 that has the front hood covered with "The Passion" movie advertisements. It was the interstate battery car (Gibbs team? Not sure).

Clever marketing? Exploitation? Dr Jack Van Impe will decide.

This is a secret?

Notice how well foreign films do in this country? And those are in languages that some people can understand. It's fine if he wants to make a movie for his fellow hardcore jesus boys, but if he wants to market this as a movie for the masses, then I stand by my statement that he's not too bright. Trying to do that will be throwing money down the drain.

I think you're wrong about the money (some theatres here have already been bought out for the first three weeks), but I don't think his main pont is making money. He wanted the movie to be as close to the first century as possible, and that means Aramaic (not arabic by the way). It was the language (along with the language of trade, Greek) of first century Palestine.

This is a prestege picture, not a "blockbuster" big budget film.

I think Luis and sheridan will finally reunite. And Some day Gwen will catch on to the fact that Beth is trying to kill her. And I dont like the storyline of Charity becoming a slut. I believe once she loses her virginity, the world will end.

Ive been called a lot of things but never a "hardcore Jesus boy"

Kinda catchy...

Perhaps he doesn't want to make it a movie for the masses.

dola-
Wrong Passions :)

Yea, Mel Gibson is an idiot. Ever heard of Braveheart? I think he knows what he's doing. And this is not supposed to be an Independence Day type film. It's intended to be a movie that follows strictly to the story that is told in the Bible.

I have never understood the appeal of foreign langauge films to the critics. When I go overseas and see American movies they are always Dubbed into the "official" language of the country. Even in a coutry like Japan that has a higher literacy rate than the US our films. out dubbed. So, why is it that the US is the only country that refuses to convert foreign films?

Authenticity my eye:
I don't have to hear German to understand the holocaust.
My priest does not have to speak latin for me to completely understand the bible.
I don't have to know Cherokee to understand the plight of the American Indian.

So, making a movie in a dead language seems just plain stupid. I know I definitely wait untill the DVD comes out with an English track before I see this.

And, what language was Braveheart in?

You're right Taur. I just hope we don't have more producer and directors sticking true to their artistic ideals rather than selling out for a blockbuster pay check.

Thank you, GD. You said everything I was going to (that Gibson was going for realism), and that the language is Aramaic, which no doubt does influence the Arabic language as many of the dialects of the area would evenutally, but was not really an "ancient Arabic" language.

CR

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a great movie when you watched it in Chinese. I tried watching it in English and I didn't like it as much.

How do you get from point A to point B. Did the church "Sell-Out" when they translated the bible from hebrew to Latin? Would the Bible be a better book if it was still in a foreign language and not understandable by the masses?

If a painter paints a picture in a color not viewable to the human eye is he any more artistic?
If a composer writes an opera in a key not hearable by the human ear is he any more artistic?
If a Chef creates a dessert not digestable by the human stomach is he any more artistic?

So, why is a man who creates a Movie in a language not understanable by the human population considered more artistic?

Doesn't all make sense.

I can WATCH a film and understand what is happening because of the acting. If an Jewish man cries for a reason you can translate on FILM, it doesn't matter what language he speaks.

As far as the opera in an un-audible key...yes. It wouldn't appeal to masses, but for us that read music, we can see what he wrote and hear the piece in our heads. Not to mention that if he did write an opera in an un-audible key, how would he know what it sounded like?

paradoxial

That's funny! When I first saw the thread I thought it was about one of the actresses on the show (short-hair, actress name is McCarty) who has done a number of soft porn shows that keep showing up on Skinemax on Cable. All I can say is nice rack!!

Bart: What do we need church shoes for, Jesus wore sandals.
Homer: Well, maybe if he had better arch support they wouldn't have caught him.


As an expert at being pretentious, this smacks of it. It also reminds me a lot of the anime dubbed vs subbed one-sided debate but that's another story for another day. You say it's authentic and to watch his acting but that's just dismissing the importance of script and the whole notion that cinema encompasses more than just the sense of sight. It'd be like saying "Script be damned, Jim Carrey had good body language in Ace Ventura 2, let's give him the Oscar".

SI

I saw a pre-screening of The Passion Of The Christ back in January, complete with James Cavezil (the guy who played Jesus) talking to us afterward, and a recorded video greeting to the Young Life staff from Mel Gibson. It was pretty cool, to say the least. A few comments:

1. Mel Gibson wanted the spoken languages to be authentic. While we may or may not agree with that decision, my understanding is that most/all of the money that went into making this movie was Gibson's own, so if so it really is his business. The spoken languages in the movie are Aramaic, Ancient Latin (Romans, remember?), and I believe a bit of Hebrew as well.

2. It has English subtitles in the theater version. I don't get what the big deal is. Gibson wanted the spoken languages to be authentic, but was won over by several pre-screening groups that the movie needed English subtitles. This is commonly done for foreign-language films. (Heck, any time I watch a movie on DVD at home that is in English, I use the subtitles.)

3. It is very true to the Gospels. It is no more or no less anti-Semitic than the Gospel writings. The main time frame of the movie is only from Gethsemane (around midnight Thursday night/Friday morning) to Jesus' death (around 3pm Friday afternoon). Point being, there is not a lot of condensation of real-time going on, so virtually everything in the four Gospel accounts from arrest to death is covered--including the "hard" passages such as "His blood be upon us and our children." I heard a rumor (unauthenticated at this point) that he was considering removing that particular sentence from the final cut, but I'm not sure what the truth is there. From a human standpoint, the Gospels present Pilate as hesitant to have Jesus crucified, Herod as a bit of a doofus, and the Jewish religious leaders as the main ones desiring that Jesus be put to death, and the movie reflects this. From a spiritual standpoint, Gibson has maintained the truth: that every human being--past, present and future--is responsible for Jesus' death due to our sin condition. Again, it is very true to the Gospels.

In the next day or two, I'm going to be writing a more extended commentary about this movie for a newsletter that I sent out to donors, etc. I was planning on posting a copy of it here as well, and will do so.

Dola--

As a few have pointed out, the non-English thing wasn't remotely a secret. It has been out there for months. Further, the decision to include subtitles was made public as well. I specifically remember going into the screening thinking, "I wonder if they've put the subtitles in yet, or if that is going to be added at the end."

I think that since Gibson funded this movie by himself, he can make it however he wanted... he even fought against the subtitles until the people releasing the movie made him do it. He wanted to do something and he did it. I think making this picture makes him far more bright than the people who made The Perfect Score or some other shitty movie of the past month.

And this looks like it will make a good deal of money regardless of the language.

While I'm not religious, and I may or may not see the film... one of the reasons people have the mindset that the film is going to be anti-semitic revolves around Gibson's own religion. It's my understanding that the "original" Catholic church, led by the current Pope, have tried and made strides in making mends with the Jewish community... basiclly saying that the death of Jesus was not their fault. However, in the Catholic spin-off that Gibson is a part of, that make a specific point not to recognize what the Pope has done in this area.

I don't claim to be a religious expert, but that's my understanding of the issues.

In this time of religious strife we live in, IMO it really doesn't help when you have one religion holding it something like this, that was done by only a certain part of the other religion... and it happened almost 2000 years ago, against another religion. I certainly don't mean to offend anyone who is a part of the Catholic spin-off in question, but this segment of that religion troubles me... and if I don't fully understand it I'd be happy to listen, open-mindedly, to an explanation.

The current issue of Newsweek does a good job showing where Gibson deviates from the Bible, accounts from the gospels and historic records in order to show the Jews in a much more negative light than is warranted.

Passions is no more an accurate picture of the crucifixion than Bowling for Columbine is a documentary.

Gibson's dad left the Catholic church over Vatican II, a seemingly harmless edict that absolved Jews of guilt. Given that Christianity stems from Judaism and the temple that played a major role in Christ's death was just one sect of many, the edict makes a lot of sense. Yet Hutton Gibson claimed Vatican II was part of a Jewish plot to take over the Catholic church. He also claims the Holocaust never happened.

So, Mel was raised in a fairly anti-semitic environment. It happens, and shouldn't be condemnation on its own.

But 12 years ago, Mel spent a lot of his money to create the same Vatican II-based church in California. There are only about 600 of these churches in the world. And he spent $25 million of his own money to create Passions, which, strangely enough, is as biblically accurate as possible with exception to the role the Jews played in these events.

Coincidence? Raised in anti-semitic household, spent a fortune on arguably anti-semitic pursuits? I think there's significant reason to believe Mel Gibson has dedicated a good part of his life to hatred of Jews.

I hope people of faith understand this, and take Passions with more than one grain of salt.

I think the main issue is that many "Christian" sects would prefer to ignore the "hard" passages of the New Testament. There are several reasons for this, some of them perfectly understandable. The hard passages have been used over time (wrongly) as a "justification" for hate, racism, slavery, murder, war and just about everything else. However, some hard passages are ignored for PC-type reasons as well--they just don't sound "inclusive" or "touchy-feely" enough for the masses, is the thinking, I suppose. The result is that you have the Pope glossing over the hard passages--the ones that clearly from a human perspective lay the responsiblity at the feet of the Jewish leaders. (As I said earlier, from a spiritual perspective, every human being is responsible.) It sounds like Gibson's sect chooses to embrace the whole of the New Testament's teaching on this, rather than choose to focus on the easiest-to-accept aspect of it.

Here are some examples of some of the "tough" passages of the New Testament--both about this issue and a few others...

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me."--Jesus speaking in John 14:6

"I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!"--Jesus speaking in John 8:58, claiming to be God.

"Men of Isreal, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man acceredited by God toyou by miracles, wonders and sings, which God did among you throgh him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross....Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."--portions of Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem in Acts 2.

"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus--from Paul's letter to Timothy (I Timothy 2:5)

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and receives in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."--Romans 1:27

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."--Romans 1:20

"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: 'They why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?' But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make our of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"--Romans 9:18-21

I could go on, but I think you get the point. These aren't easy-to-swallow passages that fly in our "whatever-you-believe-is-fine-for-you-whatever-I-believe-is-fine-for-me" culture. They are very narrow. None can rightly be used as an excuse for hatred, inaction, etc., but unfortunately at times they are.

In short, I believe there is a misconception out there in the general populus (and inside the walls of many churches as well) that the Old Testament speaks of a God who is about law, wrath and justice, while the New Testament speaks of a God who is about mercy, love and grace. The reality is that both Testaments declare the totality of a God who is both perfect in justice and perfect in love. It is difficult/impossible to reconcile the two in our finite minds.

Sheesh...that ended up to be a much longer post than I expected. Sorry if it felt like a sermon.

I haven't read that issue of Newsweek, but I'd be curious to see it. I'm not a New Testament scholar, but I'm fairly well-versed on the narrative of the crucifixion in the Gospels. I didn't sit down and go through line-by-line after watching the movie, but I certainly didn't see any glaring things left out or overly emphasized.

I undestand that... but there's a difference in laying blame at a select group of Jewish people and laying blame at the entire religion. And IMO that is a huge difference...

PS - Just to give some perspective on where I'm coming from on my posts. I was raised in a Catholic family, both parents are Catholic, and went to church every Sunday growing up. Over time (the whole 19 years of my life :) ), for many reasons I've come to the conclusion that IMO there is no God. While I completly respect those who are religious, that part of life isn't for me. When I talk about these type of religions I do my best to respect the other side... so if anything I say is taken the wrong way, it is not meant to.

Well, I agree with you whole-heartedly, but the most problematic passage--and the one that I've heard may be deleted from the movie, is Matthew 27:24-25:
The version I saw tones this down a bit, actually. Rather than having many people in the crowd yell it out, one of the religious leaders stands alone and yells it out. (I think Caiaphas, the high priest, is the one who yells it.)

Jim, I skimmed the Newsweek article, and I have to respectfully disagree with your take on it. It looks like that article is trying to disrepute the reliability of the Gospel narratives themselves, rather than say that the movie differs from the Gospels. As I mentioned above, the most difficult New Testament passage regarding whatever responsibility Jews have for Jesus' death is toned down in the movie, and from what I've heard may even be deleted from the final cut.

But again that quote goes back to what I was saying about only a select number of Jews being responsible. Though I'm no biblical expert, and certainly no historian I really doubt that every Jewish person in existince back then was in that crowd.

I think one of the biggest problems I have with certain religions (segments of Christianity) is their strict interpretation of the bible, that allows no time for seeing things in the context and historical time that the things were written... that and the fact that the bible (which btw I still see the value in parts of it), was written by man.

The article is online

Yeah. That's where I looked at it.

Well, of course not, but it is likely that a fairly large portion of the Jews in Jerusalem were there, and keep in mind that it was the time of the Passover. Saying "his blood be on us and on our children" is then pretty significant.

I understand and respect your right to have that opinion. I just wish others would understand and respect my right to have the opinion that the Bible is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice.

Yes, but while significant it's far from the whole religion being responsible.


You don't have to wish from me, because I deeply respect yours and others right to believe what you want. Opinions will differ, but, hey thats life. :)

I did more than skim the Newsweek article, and the author most certainly does not dismiss the Gospels as biased.

The crux of the article is that Gibson had no justification for portraying Pilate as weak and submissive. Gibson created many scenes outside of the Bible and the Gospels in order to support this portrayal, which essentially calls Luke a liar, as well as historians from that period.

While I disagree with censorship of any kind, this film is dangerous, and should not be portrayed as an absolutely true account of these events, from anyone's perspective other than those who split from the Catholic church on account of Vatican II.

You did not read far enough Ben. He begins the article by pointing out that the gospels do deviate from historical facts at times. But he does point out numerous deviations between the gospels and the film.

Alrighty...guess I need that entire thing... BRB.

I will agree that the author does put far more emphasis on how the film deviates from history than from the gospels. There are a few examples though.

Long article, so I’ve decided to read and comment as I go…



Again, this is hard to get around without ignoring what the Gospels say about Pilate. I already quoted the Matthew passage. Here are the others:

Mark 15:9--“Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him.”

Mark 15:12-15—“What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them. “Crucify him!” the shouted. “Why?” What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!” Wanting to satisfy the crow, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Luke’s passage is long, but here are a few highlights….

Luke 23:4—“Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, ‘I find no basis for a charge against this man.’”

Then Pilate side-steps the issue by sending him to Herod, who ends up sending him back to Pilate. Upon his return…

Luke 23:13-15—“Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.”

Then there is the Barabbas stuff, with the crowd demanding “Crucify him!” After three times of Pilate protesting…

Luke 23:23--“But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. So Pilate decided to grant their demand.”



John records it similarly;

John 18:38—“What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.”

Further, in chapter 19 in verses 1-16, we find a very similar dialog.



I’ll keep reading the article, but this is just one example of what I meant. In order to justify the paragraph above from the article, you have to discount a harmonious account in all four gospels. If the movie claims to be based on the whole of the gospels, how else COULD it have handled these passages apart from the way the article describes?

"But the Bible can be a problematic source. Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing in particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance."

That seems to me as not "dismissing" but certaintly portraying, the Gospels as biased.

I found it ironic that the author would seemingly criticize the Gospels that way when he was clearly writing a piece with particular points to make and points of view to advance.

I do agree that the portrayal of Pilate as submissive and easily manipulated by the Temple is the author's biggest problem with the movie - and is also highly likely to be inaccurate. That is just not how the Romans ruled what they conquered.

My surface response to the Newsweek article is largely the same as that of Solecismic... but I don't claim a lot of background knowledge of the issue going in. I do have one general observation about the article, though. I, for one, find it difficult to accept when anyone says "no, this is what really happened" in cases like these -- I really think that the best we have is things like "this is what our translation of the bible actually says," or "this is what biblical historians largely agree." But I did find that many of Jon Meacham's conclusions in the article (which was indeed very critical of Gibson's film) were simply stated boldly... and I 'm sure that there are those who would dispute any number of ths things he asserts as fact.

I don't know what to think aboug Gibson and pure anti-Semitism... but I do know that his denials of same don't sway me much at all. He's an experienced filmmaker, he fully understands the use of proxy and symbolism in that medium. If he decides to emphasize bloodthirsty Jews and reluctant Romans in the picture, he knows full well the impression that he will leave. To then backtrack and say that the film "blames all of humanity" (paraphrasing there) is a pretty obvious denial of his artistic decision-making.

Another example of what I meant...

Pick on the ACLU when it's merited, fine. They'll be on Gibson's side here... right where I properly infer that you'll be. The ACLU fights for individual's rights to civil liberties, including the right of unfettered expression.

If you want to gripe about someone objecting to the film, you'll have to go and pick on the ADL or another organization of that sort. Have at it.

Are you arguing that this statement is demonatrsbly false?
Or that you believe it to be false?
Or that this is a matter of opinion, being presented as fact?

Honest question... I really don't know what you mean here, other than that you are singling this statement from the Meacham piece for some reason.

Agreed. It IS, however, a movie. There is some additional dialog throughout the movie not found in the Gospels. However, I don't recall seeing anything that wasn't believable in the context of the Gospels. That the Temple leaders would try to smooth things over with the Roman soldiers fits the situation.

I find it fascinating that Gibson believes that protestants are following the wrong version of Christianity, even including his Episcopalian wife, but is spending a great deal of time marketing this movie to evangelicals.

Hmmm...that last sentence is just blatantly untrue. Matthew and Mark, the only two of the gospel writers that go into detail about Jesus' conversation with the high priest, both say that the high preist tore his garment after Jesus said it, which is something that he would only do upon hearing blasphemy spoken in his presence. (Matt. 26:65, Mark 14:64)

Again, this is arguing against the authenticity of the N.T. It presents these events pretty much exactly like they are presented in the movie.

Ah, so he did cut it.

Again, another place where the movie is true to the gospels, but the author of the article has a problem with that...

Dagnabbit. This is getting frustrating. Except for the release of Barabbas, there is no hint of this context in the Gospels.

Again, there are several invented scenes. Matthew tells us that Pilate's wife sent a message to him saying "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him." If I recall, the movie has her saying it to him face-to-face, and the above is Pilate's response. My take is that Gibson was trying to explain why he thinks Pilate gave in--which is (as the article presents) as valid question.

Fair enough. I guess Gibson's explanation doesn't hold water then. ;)

I hate to sound like a broken record here, but that's the way the gospels present it:

Matt. 27:20--"But the cheif preiests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed."

Mark 15:11--"But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead."

Further...

John 19:6--"As soon as the cheif priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!"

Come on! The Gospels don't explicitly say that Caiaphas relieved himself at some point that day either, but I'll bet that he did. It is quite reasonable to assume that he would have been there, isn't it??? If you're going to do a crowd scene at the scouring and at the Crucifixion, how can you NOT have Caiaphas there???

This is precisely what I meant about ignoring the hard passages. This reads like a script for "Christian political correctness." Let's just pretend that the stuff that could be controversial isn't in there. :rolleyes:

I agree whole-heartedly with this paragraph.

...and this one as well.

OK. Now that I've read the article in its entirety (and gotten quite a bit of studying in for the message I'm giving tonight on the Cross--nice to be able to truly mix work and FOFC! :D), I stand by my assertion that the article spends far more time trying to disrepute the reliability of the Gospel narratives themselves, rather than say that the movie differs from the Gospels.

Getting back to the original post - that's neither dirty nor a secret. I don't even care much about this movie, but even I read about that back in October or so.

Just wondering...did the guy who wrote this article cite the fact that lightning struck 2 of the people involved in making this film during filming, because quite honestly, that seems more convincing to me than nitpicking about the portrayal of events described in the Bible.

Thanks for taking the time to post that, SkyDog. It closely mirrors my reaction to reading the article as well. Of particular note, was your endorsement of The South Beach Diet Online!

Scottish :D

Yeah, I agree that I was unclear there. I see that as another statement meant to attempt to on some level discount the Gospels, rather than the harmony between the movie and the Gospels.

I'm not going to endeavor to argue the reliability of the Gospels in this forum(although obviously I believe them to be reliable.) My only point regarding this movie is that it is very consistent with the Gospels.

"He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" (Antiquities, XVIII, III).

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian.

They have made no secret of the fact that the movie is spoken completely in ancient arabic. In fact they actualy used that as a selling point for the movie. There wont be much talking in the movie anyways, but they have decided to put english subtitles in when there is talking. Check it out on Yahoo Movies.

Okay... even if the "temple elite" were the ones whose pressure largely brought about the crucifixion (as many people agree), does that necessarily translate to "The Jews" are the ones who are guilty? My sense from what I understand of Vatican II is not to deny the role of the Jewish leaders of that temple their roles, but rather to state that this blame does not go forth to all Jewish people of that time, and certainly does not justify blaming Jews of later generations, including those of today.

The idea of rejecting that message (as I understand Gibson's sect does) seems disturbing to me.

Oh, I agree with you whole-heartedly on this one. My thoughts on the movie are completely independent of my thoughts on that particular sect.

EDIT: Although, come to think of it, technically if "his blood be upon on and our children" was the calling down of a curse, generally "our children" used in that context would mean "all of our descendents." So, if you want to look at it that literally, one could argue that every descendent of the people who called down said curse are under it, but that is really nit-picking if you ask me.

Understood. My comment wasn't really about the movie, either.

Take it closer to home. Do you blame yourself or your ruling government for the needless butchering of Native American Indians or the illegal incarceration of Japanese-Americans during WWII?

My answer is pretty clear-cut.

This thread brings up another fascinating point.

What is the Dola record? Ben has (by my count) 12 consecutive posts. I have no idea what the word is for a (11)-dola. Ontuple?

I am far enough removed from the politics and government of the former that I have practically no opinion, other than to concur that what happens seems shameful. For the latter, I feel a sense of disgrace that the government of my country, though before my birth, made this decision, presumably with the support of its people.

Is that the sort of answer you were looking for?

I fail to understand how I should translate that to the case of modern-day Jews and the crucifixion? Were the "temple elite" clearly representing the will of all the Jewish people in their supposed insistance that he be killed? (I ask this openly - I've never heard anyone assert that to be the case, but from your question I'm inferring that you are placing their actions alongside those of a representative government, as a fair comparison)

Lol! I'm not sure that counts as a dola. That was more of a dynasty-style posting, since that was WAYYYYY too much info to put into one post. ;)


Gotta run out to a couple of meetings. Curious where this discussing is going to go...

Geez, its not just Gibson's vision that that ONE jewish sect help overcome some Roman reluctance at the crucification of Jesus. How many times has this been protrayed before in the Story of Jesus? How many ways is it eleduded to in the Bible? This is not Gibson or his religion making this story up.

Yes the key is this is one interpretation, albeit a common one, and the group being portrayed is ONE SECT. I mean come on, should Italians be concerned because it portrays some Romans in a bad light?

This is a complete overreation, that one Jewish sect did have a role to play, but there is no one left from that group that should care anymore? Oh and I am HARDLY a Catholic apologist(normally the opposite actually), but why is it ok to bring up past Vatican indiscretions, regardless of how factually sure of them we are, but heaven forbid a portrayl of one politically involved Jewish group that exisited 2000 years ago condemning what they believed to be an ordinary man!? Geesh.

Actually your answer is the same as mine. I don't believe I should take responsibility for the actions of my forefathers either though I do feel remorse for those actions. I am actually in your camp. I was just trying to (though probably through far-fetched examples) relate something in terms of time passed. Here we have a difference of 100 or so years compared to roughly 2000. And of course the "temple elite" were not a formed government, they were under Roman rule. But they were representative of this particular group.

I believe that Gibson's sect is misguided. Until I see the movie myself, I am not sure if I can judge it as a Passion portrayal influenced by the beliefs of that sect or an honest appraisal of the Passion.

The problem with depicting the Passion that usually occurs is the intermixing of the Gospels. I am not sure if there is a solution to that.

Since you have seen a prescreening, I am curious if a scene with Pilate washing his hands as written in Matthew 27:24(? somewhere in there, bible not handy), decreeing "I am innocent of this man's blood," is in this film.

If this is removed also, the two most prevalent "anti-Semite occurances" throughout the Gospels are not in the film.

My answer is probably different than yours and QS's. I think the word "blame" in the original question is problematic. Nonetheless, if you take "blame" to mean "responsible," then yes, I do blame myself.

I live a very privileged life because of the sins of my forefathers (and foremothers?). That I would not have done the same in their shoes seems irrelevant to me. I cannot pretend all that I gained through their misconduct does not exist. I am a product of atrocities. I don't think I can ever forget that.

He also posted a swimsuit picture :D

Thank you, Ben. Very well said.

I just want to point out one important point in all of this "Jews are to blame" thing. Jesus prayed on the cross not to allow this sin (his death) to be on them. As Ben stated, the cornerstone of Christianity is that all sin called for the need for the perfect sacrifice, Jesus. That small-minded men with hatred in their hearts have used this pretense to hate and kill their fellow man in the complete antithesis of what Jesus did.

If I have one purpose in life, it's to create catchy labels so I can further single out groups of people and feel superior to them.

Or, it's to make tounge in cheek comments because I think too many people are way too uptight and I try to break that down with humor.

Either one you pick is fine with me.

This particular movie is condensed from 4 often-times conflicting versions of events written second-hand (at best) many years after they occurred by people pushing their own agendas and defending their beliefs in the face of persecution. Then these stories were translated countless times through history, and filmed 2000 years after that.

Mr. Gibson no doubt has used dramatic license, most evidently in the form of the Pilate character. But make no mistake, these are simply his interpretation of an interpretation. He's trying to make money and eat his cake too. I admire the integrity of the attempt.

What strikes me as odd whenever the anti-semitic discussions come up is that Jesus, first and foremost, was a Jew. He taught from the perspective of Judaism, intending to change Judaism from within. It is only later, when the political divisions became more apparent and irreconciliable, that the followers of his particular cult separated. The gospels were written by essentially disgruntled Jews with an intent to differentiate themselves from Judaism and establish their own sect, and today, to the uninformed reader, that appears to be anti-semitism.

He was killed because he was a threat to the established order, and nothing was more dangerous in that era than having control of the "mob" or masses. Both the Romans and the Jews in power were at the most risk and likely share responsibility for his death, but so what. People defend themselves from perceived threats - the Roman punishment was a little more severe than what we're used to, but hardly out of step with the times. As a revolutionary growing in influence, his death was practically inevitable, and dare I say, necessary. His martyrdom created the opportunity for the "resurrection", and the perpetuity of that myth is what made the religion stand out from the countless other prophets of the era.

And now I can really piss people off by saying that in some sense, Jesus could have died thinking that his life was a failure, the ultimate agony on the cross. Revolution against the Romans was not to occur for another 40? years after his death, and it got crushed. The Jews never really got a homeland of their own until WWII, and even that is in dispute. He was betrayed by one of his own, so he must have had even more doubts about his weak-hearted followers, not one of whom was brave enough to speak in his defense. Without the resurrection, they would surely have dispersed into anonymous history. He suffered on many levels, no doubt. Whether his faith survived, well, only he knew.

At this point, does it matter?

I'm very interested in seeing this movie. I'm a theology student in Fort Worth, and I'm taking two classes on the New Testament this semester. I haven't seen this film yet, but I wanted to share just a little bit of background that might explain some of the events that happen outside of the Bible.

One, Pilate was on shaky ground with Rome for much of his time. The article in Newsweek mentioned that he was summoned back to Rome to account for his squashing of a revolt. There were a couple of times before Christ died that Pilate found himself on shaky ground. The rulers of the Roman provinces were often appointed to the friends of Rome. In fact, the crowd says to Pilate you are no friend of Caesar if you let this guy go.

Two, Christ was killed by a plot from the leaders of the religious sects. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians were all involved in trying to kill Jesus. They each had their private agendas for why they wanted this to happen. They were afraid of Rome taking away their place. These guys pretty much had it made. The Pharisees and Sadducees were very highly respected and wealthy. It makes sense that they would be opposed to anybody who wanted to rock the boat.

Three, who killed Christ? The Jewish leaders take Jesus to the Romans to get a death sentence. They had no power to kill anybody and they wouldn't want to take a chance of losing their place by doing it. The Romans really didn't care what went on as long as it went on peacefully. This is kind of the philosophy of the Roman government. So, its really hard to say that one is more guilty than the other.

Four, I don't know what the crowd scenes are going to look like, but think about the scenes from New York on New Years eve. There would literally be every Jew who could get there in the city of Jerusalem at this time. You didn't miss the feast of Passover. So, the crowd wasn't just the leaders and their cronies, there would probably be close to a million (if not more) in the city.

As far as the reports from Josephus, one of the difficulties about their credibility is that Josephus was a leader in the Jewish army who deserted and joined up with the Romans. Did he write his histories to ingratiate himself with the Romans or to repair his relationship with the Jewish people? For the most part, his histories are accepted to be very accurate.

I hope that people will see this movie, and then read through the gospels and decide for themselves about it. I think it would be a shame to let a magazine or another person decide for you what to think about it. I'm looking forward to seeing how this movie goes.

I'm curious if anybody saw the movie that was out in the fall about the gospel of John. I saw it, and I think that it was probably the best movie about Jesus I've ever seen. It was very accurate both to the Scripture and to the culture of the time. Anyway, hope you have a great day. Thanks for reading.

Very well spoken Ben. I for one am very excited to see this film and to be honest I have a feeling that with or without subtitles that this movie would be plenty powerful enough to understand the story being told.

The washing of hands was in the pre-screening, and was in the trailer that they showed us, I think, but since it happens immediately prior to "his blood be on us....", then I wouldn't be surprised if it is part of the scene that was deleted.

Definition of SkyPosting:

A string of 10 or more posts in a row (in a single topic) with no other replies in between.

Note: SkyPosting can only be done in the General Forum. Dynasty forums are not applicable.

:)

Well see, I lost posts with the upgrade, and had to make up for them.... ;)

10 is impressive

Blessed are the cheesemakers?

oops wrong movie...

This movie is probably no more controversial than Last Temptation of Christ...only the Catholics were in uproar...

I'm not old enough to remember when Last Temptation came out, although I've seen it.

Does anyone remember how the controversy surrounding Last Temptation compares to this?

I remember when it came out. There was definitely controversy, but I think a little less.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with Temptation, the issue was with Scorsese's portrayal of Jesus as not necessarily divine -- i.e., not in accordance with the Council of Nicaea?

That I don't remember, Catholics picketed because there was a scene depicting Christ having sex with Mary Magdalene.

Yeah, and that whole fantasizing-about-coming-down-off-the-cross-to-have-sex-with-Mary-Magdalene thing raised an eyebrow or two as well. :p

Right right right -- forgot about that little detail ;)