"The Passion"'s dirty little secret

[Ben E Lou]

There is much here to give the thinking believer pause. "Son of God" and "Son of Man" were fairly common appellations for religious figures in the first century. The accusation about eating Jesus' flesh and blood—obviously a Christian image of the eucharist—does not appear in any Gospel trial scene. And it was not "blasphemy" to think of yourself as the "Messiah," which more than a few Jewish figures had claimed to be without meeting Jesus' fate, except possibly at the hands of the Romans. The definition of blasphemy was a source of fierce Jewish argument, but it turned on taking God's name in vain—and nothing in the Gospel trial scenes supports the idea that Jesus crossed that line.

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)

[Ben E Lou]

As the day dawns, Jesus is taken to Pilate, and it is here that Gibson slips farthest from history. Pilate is presented as a sensible and sensitive if not particularly strong ruler. "Isn't [Jesus] the prophet you welcomed into the city?" Pilate asks. "Can any of you explain this madness to me?" There is, however, no placating Caiaphas.

The scene of a crowd of Jews crying out "Crucify him! Crucify him!" before Pilate has been a staple of Passion plays for centuries, but it is very difficult to imagine Caesar's man being bullied by the people he usually handled roughly. When Pilate had first come to Judea, he had ordered imperial troops to carry images of Caesar into the city; he appropriated sacred Temple funds to build an aqueduct, prompting a protest he put down with violence; about five years after Jesus' execution, Pilate broke up a gathering around a prophet in Samaria with cavalry, killing so many people that he was called to Rome to explain himself.

Jesus seems very much alone before Pilate, and this raises a historical riddle. If Jesus is a severe enough threat to merit such attention and drastic action, where are his supporters? In Gibson's telling, they are silent or scared. Some probably were, and some may not have known of the arrest, which happened in secret, but it seems unlikely that a movement which threatened the whole capital would so quickly and so completely dwindle to a few disciples, sympathetic onlookers, Mary and Mary Magdalene.

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.

[Ben E Lou]

In the memorable if manufactured crowd scene in the version of the movie screened by NEWSWEEK, Gibson included a line that has had dire consequences for the Jewish people through the ages. The prefect is again improbably resisting the crowd, the picture of a just ruler. Frustrated, desperate, bloodthirsty, the mob says: "His blood be on us and on our children!" Gibson ultimately cut the cry from the film, and he was right to do so. Again, consider the source of the dialogue: a partisan Gospel writer. The Gospels were composed to present Jesus in the best possible light to potential converts in the Roman Empire—and to put the Temple leadership in the worst possible light. And many scholars believe that the author of Matthew, which is the only Gospel to include the "His blood be on us" line, was writing after the destruction of the Temple in 70 and inserted the words to help explain why such misery had come upon the people of Jerusalem. According to this argument, blood had already fallen on them and on their children.

Ah, so he did cut it.

[Ben E Lou]

A moment later in Gibson's movie, Pilate is questioning Jesus and, facing a silent prisoner, says, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus then replies: "... he who delivered me to you has the greater sin." The "he" in this case is Caiaphas. John's point in putting this line in Jesus' mouth is almost certainly to take a gibe at the Temple elite. But in the dramatic milieu of the movie, it can be taken to mean that the Jews, through Caiaphas, are more responsible for Jesus' death than the Romans are—an implication unsupported by history.

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

[Ben E Lou]

The Temple elite undoubtedly played a key role in the death of Jesus; Josephus noted that the Nazarene had been "accused by those of the highest standing amongst us," meaning among the Jerusalem Jews. But Pilate's own culpability and ultimate authority are indisputable as well. If Jesus had not been a political threat, why bother with the trouble of crucifixion? There is also evidence that Jesus' arrest was part of a broader pattern of violence or feared violence this Passover. Barabbas, the man who was released instead of Jesus, was, according to Mark, "among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection"—suggesting that Pilate was concerned with "rebels" and had already confronted an "insurrection" some time before he interrogated Jesus.

Except for the release of Barabbas, there is no hint of this context in Gibson's movie.

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

[Ben E Lou]

"The Passion of the Christ" includes an invented scene in which Pilate laments his supposed dilemma. "If I don't condemn him," he tells his wife, "Caiaphas will start a rebellion; if I do, his followers will."

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.

Caiaphas was in no position to start a rebellion over Jesus; he and Pilate were in a way allies, and when serious revolt did come, in 66, it would be over grievances about heavy-handed Roman rule, not over a particular religious figure, and even then the priests would plead with the people not to rebel.

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

In the movie, far from urging calm, the priests lead the crowd, and Pilate, far from using his power to control the mob, gives in. And so Jesus is sentenced to death.

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!"

[Ben E Lou]

Without authority from the New Testament, Caiaphas, meanwhile, is depicted as a grim witness to the scourging and Crucifixion as Gibson cuts back to the Last Supper and to moments of Jesus' teaching.

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???

[Ben E Lou]

Was there any way for him to have made a movie about the Passion and avoided this firestorm? There was. There are a number of existing Catholic pastoral instructions detailing the ways in which the faithful should dramatize or discuss the Passion. "To attempt to utilize the four passion narratives literally by picking one passage from one gospel and the next from another gospel, and so forth," reads one such instruction, "is to risk violating the integrity of the texts themselves... it is not sufficient for the producers of passion dramatizations to respond to responsible criticism simply by appealing to the notion that 'it's in the Bible'." The church also urges "the greatest caution" when "it is a question of passages that seem to show the Jewish people as such in an unfavorable light." The teachings suggest dropping scenes of large, chanting Jewish crowds and avoiding the device of a Sanhedrin trial. They also note that there is evidence Pilate was not a "vacillating administrator" who "himself found 'no fault' with Jesus and sought, though in a weak way, to free him." A reference in Luke, instructions point out, and historical sources indicate that he was, rather, a "ruthless tyrant," and "there is, then, room for more than one dramatic style of portraying the character of Pilate and still being faithful to the biblical record." The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, NEWSWEEK has learned, is publishing these teachings in book form to coincide with the release of Gibson's movie.

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.

[Ben E Lou]

In the best of all possible worlds, "The Passion of the Christ" will prompt constructive conversations about the origins of the religion that claims 2 billion followers around the globe, conversations that ought to lead believers to see that Christian anti-Semitism should be seen as an impossibility—a contradiction in terms. To hate Jews because they are Jews—to hate anyone, in fact—is a sin in the Christian cosmos, for Jesus commands his followers to love their neighbor as themselves. On another level, anti-Semitism is a form of illogical and self-defeating self-loathing. Bluntly put, Jesus had to die for the Christian story to unfold, and the proper Christian posture toward the Jewish people should be one of respect, for the man Christians choose to see as their savior came from the ancient tribe of Judah, the very name from which "Jew" is derived. As children of Abraham, Christians and Jews are branches of the same tree, linked together in the mystery of God.

I agree whole-heartedly with this paragraph.

[Ben E Lou]

Let us end where we, and Gibson's movie, began—in the garden, in darkness. The guards have come to arrest Jesus. He watches as his disciples come to blows with the troops. Punches are thrown, and one of Jesus' men lashes out with a weapon, slashing off the ear of a servant of the high priest. Watching, removed from the fray, Jesus intervenes, commanding: "Put up thy sword," making real the New Testament commandment to love one another as he loved us, even unto death—a commandment whose roots stretch back to the 19th chapter of Leviticus: "... you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord." Amid the clash over Gibson's film and the debates about the nature of God, wheth-er you believe Jesus to be the savior of mankind or to have been an interesting first-century figure who left behind an inspiring moral philosophy, perhaps we can at least agree on this image of Jesus of Nazareth: confronted by violence, he chose peace; by hate, love; by sin, forgiveness—a powerful example for us all, whoever our gods may be.

...and this one as well.

[Ben E Lou]

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! ), 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.

[Ksyrup]

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.

[MJ4H]

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!

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Taur

And, what language was Braveheart in?

Scottish

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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.

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.

[HornedFrog Purple]

"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.

[Sun Tzu]

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.

[QuikSand]

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.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

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

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

[HornedFrog Purple]

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.

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.

[Samdari]

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?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

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?

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)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Samdari

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?

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...

[Tigercat]

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.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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)

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.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Ah, so he did cut it.

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.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

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.

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.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Samdari

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?

He also posted a swimsuit picture

[GrantDawg]

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.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

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

Kinda catchy...

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.

[bamcgee]

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?

[Cap Ologist]

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.

[Gary Gorski]

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.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

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.

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.

[wig]

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.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by wig

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....

[wig]

10 is impressive

[Qwikshot]

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...

[corbes]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

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?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by corbes

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.

[corbes]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

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?

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by corbes

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.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by corbes

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?

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.

[corbes]

Right right right -- forgot about that little detail