The Passion

[melon]

The Old Testament is loosely historically accurate, mostly because it is oral tradition written down several hundred years after the fact...or so we believe. It is believed that the OT is of post-exilic origin, meaning that there is a good possibility that these texts were rewritten with an agenda:

1) To give them a distinct history, right or wrong.
2) To emphasize that there is only one God.
3) To emphasize that that "one God" gives direct authority through the Mosaic Law, and, indirectly, through the clerics that enforce "the law."

The third point is where I'm mostly concerned. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we're already uncovering some inconsistencies in regards to the Mosaic Law, and, before we start deifying that canon simply because it is older, there is a very good possibility that there was no central OT canon, just as there was (and still is) no centralized Jewish faith. Thus, different sects had different canons, and wrote that canon to suit their agenda. In other words, it may all be less God and more human.

And I think that's where Jesus comes in. He ends up rejecting some major parts of the OT, causing enough of a stink that he ends up crucified. While the NT is unclear and, in some ways, is equally inaccurate (oral tradition written down 40-70 years after the fact), I think that is ultimately what Jesus came for: to point out the fact that much of the OT ran contrary to what God wanted.

Melon

 

[melon]

Here's an interesting article about the type of Catholicism that Mel practices

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/02/22/cherishing_an_older_catholicism/

You know, leftist dissidents in the Catholic Church get pissed on, but right-wing dissidents? The Vatican is painfully silent, but, since it is noted that much of the Pope's inner circle is part of the fanatical "Opus Dei" cult, that explains the hypocrisy.

Here's a good link about Opus Dei: http://www.odan.org/

And, funny enough, the site has something to say about Opus Dei's involvement and support for the film.

http://www.odan.org/media_passion.htm

And here's a good link about the group in general:

http://www.odan.org/GQarticle.pdf

Ultimately, I'm speechless that my former religion is being run by nuts...

Melon

 

[Angela Harlem]

You can't be surprised though melon. The lines of faith and fact are blurred in every day life, in many people's faith. It is not a problem until you become a leader of an institution of which a billion odd people follow. Ego and power. Imagine the position these men are in. To feel you are that close to God Himself. I'd find it incredibly hard to believe power and ego are not an issue. This has nothing to do with the topic however.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Just wanted to say that I posted the link to that article only as a *possible* bit of insight into how Mel thinks and believes, that's all

Anyway..the more I hear about this movie the less I want to see it. Of course I still do want to be able to come to my own conclusions about it, but I understand why he claims he made it so violent, but I don't want to sit through a movie that I am physically unable to look at . I understand obviously what Jesus endured, and certainly I should also be able to endure a depiction of it..but I have serious questions re if the depiction is that way to make the Jewish people look more violent

And why treat the resurrection as some sort of an afterthought? After reading this review and opinions here..

http://www.boston.com/ae/

This part of the review stands out in my mind

We've heard some of Christ's Sermon on the Mount by then, and his exhortation to the disciples to love one another "as I have loved you." But the naked, risen Jesus who strides forth from the tomb in the last shot of the film, to the solemn thrum of martial music, does not seem very interested in love. Why should he be? He's off to war.

Certainly that's one critic's take on it, but I think it's thought provoking. I sure wish Mel would have made a powerful film about Jesus' life, and I have questions in my mind about the possible reasons why he didn't.

 

[verte76]

I have had trouble with Catholics who reject Vatican II. Last year a listserver of "traditionalist" Catholics started sending me notes without me even knowing that they were doing it. I still don't know how they got my e-mail address. It was really heavy-volume, something like 30 + e-mails a day. I was annoyed, and was successful in getting the mails stopped. They were spewing hate towards Catholics like myself who accept Vatican II's teachings. This stuff is disturbing, to say the least. This is why I'm not a huge fan of Mel's. These people really scare and disgust me.

 

[ouizy]

I am interested in seeing this movie, but remember - it is a movie. Gibson could have made any movie he wanted and did.

heck - I could make a movie showing Buddha killing Jesus - it would still just be a movie...

 

[nbcrusader]

There were a number of showings last night, both locally and across the country. Many of the viewers who were interviewed as they left the theater could do little more than cry. It must be a powerful movie.

 

[Blacksword]

See the thing that boggles my mind about the Vatican II rejectors is that they seem to belive that teh Catholic Church was uniform and uttterly the same up until that date.

For 1,950 years [the church] does one thing and then in the 60s, all of a sudden they turn everything inside out and begin to do strange things that go against the rules ? Everything that had been heresy is no longer heresy, according to the [new] rules.

- Mel Gibson

That statement is utter bullshit. The Catholic Church has changed at innumerable points in history. The Bishops of Rome didn't gain ascendency in Wester Europe until the 5th Centruy mainly throught the brillance and vitality of men like Leo the Great. But the Pope didn't become the absolute authority in the Church until the 11th Century with the reforms of Gregory the Great and his successors. For much of the Church's early history, past the 5th Century, all matters of doctrine were decided by church councils of Bishops from all over Christendom (and conciliarism is scriptural as from Acts we see that the earliest matters of doctrine were decided by a council based in Jerusalem with James, not Peter at its head). The universal Catholic Church underwent an East West split over a period of 500 years, at earlier dates the definitionof Catholic would have meant all of the areas which would subsequenly be referred to as Orthodox. The Veneration of the Virgin Mary didn't become a practice of the ROman Church until the 11th and 12th Century due largely to the theology of one man. And this was due to the Medieval Catholic's deemphasis of Christ's humanity , such that humans needed an interecessor to their intercessor. The Counter-Reformation in response to Protestantism changed teh Catholic Church quite dramatically. Then First Vatican Council in the middle of 19th century caused further changes with the institutions of such controversial docrines as Papal infallibility. Vatican II was just another bump along the road.

And Gibson's idea that Vatican II is responible for the outbreak of pedophilia charges in the last few decades is absurd. A sizable majority of priests involved were trained prior to Vatican II (one should read how priests used to be trained) and those covering it up, the Bishops certainly were. Many of the cases date back to the 60's and 70's and one can hardly say that Vatican II in less than a deade turned all those priests into pedophiles. It used to happen all the time back inthe 40's and 50's just that no one talked about it. Adults in their Fifties and Sixties have been comming forward in droves and telling their tales. Not only are the Vatican II deniers ignorant of Church history but they're also delusional, or atleast Mel is.

Though from that article (made up of cut up quotes out of context as it is) I don't get the impression that Mel's anti-Semetic. Just very protective of his father.

I find your thoery interesting Melon. Though I wouldn't go quite as far as I think you are going. Personal interest is defintely a factor but i do find it a flaw in many modern historians that they can't seem to believe people could do things out of majority faith faith reasons. The cynecism over the personal interest by religious figures goes a bit too far. Living in a secular Many people simply cannot belive that people could have believed so sincerely as to put their personal agenda aside for their God (or dieties). I feel a healthy dose of scepticism is useful but it often goes much to far. This doesn't bar out abuses of the truth or the furtherance of an agenda (Gregory the Great, had no designs on secular power as he belived it to be beneath him - he was quite puzzled and offended when people accused him of wanting to be a king or emperor- but anyone who doesn't believe he had a single all consuming agenda is nuts), yet to put it awkwardly I think we should have a bit more faith in our ancestors faith.

 

[u2sangel]

All I want to see about this film is I seriously question Mel Gibsons motives for making it!I won;t bother to elabarote you should be able to figure this out!!!!

 

[verte76]

Blacksword, you're right, the claim of Gibson and others that the Church didn't change for all of those centuries is not true. I remember one "traditionalist" making the most ridiculous claim. She told me about a trashy history book which was approved for publication by some pope in the nineteenth century. She believed this was sufficient ground for the book to be an accurate depiction of history. I don't remember anything about the book except that I knew it was trashy anti-Protestant propaganda. This happened years ago. I remember the incident because it was really shocking to me how ignorant some people are. These people blame the priest shortage and every other problem in the Church on Vatican II and the "Novo Ordo" mass. It's ludicrous. Needless to say it's disgusting to read junk spewing hate on your own faith community, the post Vatican II Catholic Church. All of this stuff gets under my skin.

 

[melon]

What people like Mel Gibson forget is that Latin was introduced into masses, because it was the language of the people (Roman Empire). Before then, the people of the empire were complaining that all masses were done in Greek!

Gibson is guilty of sheer romanticism. He's living in a history that plain never existed.

Melon

 

[melon]

There were a number of showings last night, both locally and across the country. Many of the viewers who were interviewed as they left the theater could do little more than cry. It must be a powerful movie.

Especially since many of these showings were probably packed full of conservative Christians. Anything less would be heresy.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

 

[melon]

Nevermind.

 

[AvsGirl41]

Gibson has also shown the film at AICN's film festival, which included athiests, Jews, Christians and who knows what else.

They posted at least one, if not two reviewers from athiests who also were moved by the film. You are watching a human being being tortured to death. I would think you'd have to be a sadist not to react to that.

While he has shown the film to alot of Christian groups and I have mixed feelings about that, I think it's in poor taste to make blanket statements.

 

[AvsGirl41]

Here is the whole quote in context of the conversation with Gibson. Not pieces put together to make him look badly. I am one of the first on this board to cry fowl when I think someone is being hateful towards those of the Jewish faith.

Shall we take all of the quotes and disect them in the contex of the entire articles incuding questions and follow up questions?

Well said, Dreadsox.

Obviously many missed the Diane Sawyer interview. It's a shame these chopped up quotes are still being passed off as concrete fact.

I was really hesitant about seeing the film (or about seeing any more of Gibson's work, for that matter) based on what I was hearing from articles...stuff like he believed his wife was going to hell, stuff about his dad's opinions, etc.

But he made it clear in the interview that he didn't share his father's beliefs about the Holocaust but that he wasn't going to go public and say his dad was a nut, because he loved his father and he wasn't going to cause a rift. We *all* have people in our family who are like this and you just avoid those issues completely. Am I right?

What alot of the anti-Semitic claims leave out is that the actress playing Mary, Maia Morgenstern, is Jewish and a native Romanian. Her father was a survivor of the Holocaust and both read the script over and saw nothing offensive. They asked that he remove the line declaring that Jesus's blood be on them and their children and he did.

His agent is also Jewish and a child of a Holocaust survivor, and received phone calls from that NYT Reporter (Fry?) demanding to know "why your defending a Holocaust denier." His agent was apparently very hurt (who wouldn't be?) and that's what prompted Gibson to make a few violent statements. It's interesting how Gibson can be labelled an anti-Semite, but these classy journalists doing the name-calling are completely condoned?

I came away from the t.v. interview convinced Gibson was devout, but not fanatic, and with the intelligence to see where the line was. I realize he's an actor and could fool me completely, but I felt he was genuine.

I should probably stress that I'm not Catholic, nor am I very religious in any way--sadly, I guess. But I hate when the media latches on stuff like this.

 

[deep]

Here is the whole quote in context of the conversation with Gibson. Not pieces put together to make him look badly. I am one of the first on this board to cry fowl when I think someone is being hateful towards those of the Jewish faith.



the reporter asked to clarify if Gibson believed the Holocaust happened.[Q]"I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened." [/Q]

I do not believe it it is anti-semitism. The danger is in once again posting piece of a quote.

Shall we take all of the quotes and disect them in the contex of the entire articles incuding questions and follow up questions?

Q: You're going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?

Gibson:
I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union.

The danger is in once again posting piece of a quote.

so, the holocast is no big deal, according to "fanatic" Gibson.

 

[Dreadsox]

I am just totally puzzled over why people are reacting so strongly towards the man. Is there something wrong for longing for the past? Why would he want a mass in Greek? He did not grow up with that. My goodness, nobody here has seen the movies. He is an anti-semite. He is a religious nutjob who wants pre-vatican two church. Why should it matter to you? Why are people so eager to rip him to shreds?

I will wait for the movie...and worry about the movie. His religious practices did not bother me before....why should they bother me now? For all the talk in this forum about religious freedom ect......

This slogan in here should be religious freedom only if you agree with mine.

 

[Dreadsox]

Q: You're going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?

Gibson:
I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union.





so, the holocast is no big deal, according to "fanatic" Gibson.

I really hope I find the article I used. If you are in a round about way accusing me of clipping this to make a point, I hope you have the decency to apologize to me if I can show that I did not CUT the quote out.

 

[Dreadsox]

Well, I found it...and the quote was not presented in the article I used in the manner you have presented it. It is semantics, however, I clipped it at what was the end of a paragraph.

What I posted was quite different from taking one sentence and presenting the one sentence to make a point.


As to the Holocaust....Deep, that is your interpretation that he trivilaized it in some way. He answered the question, he does not DENY the Holocaust.

Now, in my family, we lost family in Pogroms in Russia and in the Holocaust. My take on it is that he is NOT anti-semetic. You may have a different opinion. That is fine.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/5/110921.shtml

 

[anitram]

I don't know if he is anti-Semitic or not - we cannot know that from interviews, because anybody can say anything they want in public and think something else altogether.

All I know is that this is just about the last film I want to see. I have zero interest in it, and the controversy is starting to grate too. Talk about publicity and the almightly dollar. Are we all so naive as to believe there isn't a great deal of money being made here?

 

[nbcrusader]

I am just totally puzzled over why people are reacting so strongly towards the man. . . . . . My goodness, nobody here has seen the movies.

The strong reaction is simple - the Cross demands a response. Gibson has made a movie that in no uncertain terms places the crucifixion and resurrection right before us.

Many a critic would rather not respond to the substance of the movie as it only underscores our need of a Savior. Virulent finger pointing at Gibson may only mask the spiritual condition of the critic.

 

[verte76]

I'm not accusing Gibson himself of anything. I do not think he is anti-Semitic. I heard him denouncing anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice on a TV interview, and I think he was honest and sincere about this. If I'm guilty of anything I suppose it's guilt by association. Just because a few nut cases who oppose Vatican II and certain reforms in the church have made anti-Semitic remarks, endorsed stupid books, etc, etc, doesn't mean a particular "traditionalist" is going to do the same. It just brings back some painful memories for me. I've had some real trouble with some of these Catholics. I guess I went overboard. Sorry, I'll try to do better.

 

[Dreadsox]

guess I went overboard. Sorry, I'll try to do better.

Stop it! You did nothing wrong..LOL

I just do not understand how Gibson is a villan.

I am more interested in how his life has changed. He sounds like he has made an incredible spiritual transformation within himself. That to me is inspirational.

My closest relative became a Jehovah's Witness. It is not for me. However, this relative has goen from a druggie, alcohal abusing person, to a new person in a relatively short period of time. The beliefs of that religion do nothing for me, however, I am amazed at how this persons life has been transformed.

I guess, that is my point.

Peace

 

[BVS]

I just do not understand how Gibson is a villan.

Never a true villian but he did play a bad guy in 'Payback', although a likable bad guy.

 

[Dreadsox]

Never a true villian but he did play a bad guy in 'Payback', although a likable bad guy.

No kidding...I like that movie for some reason.

 

[deep]

I did not CUT the quote out.

I did not believe you intentionally cut it.


It appears your source had a bias in defending Gibson.

My quote was more complete, but not in the context of the entire conversation.


I did TIVO the interview with Sawyer and have watched it a couple of times. I am sure it was edited a bit.


My opinion is that Mel believes passionately in his interpretation. That is his right.

I do see some anti-Semitism in his actions and statements.

Because it is not as covert as other's actions does not mean it does not exist.


I think this film is a huge waste, bordering on pornography. It will divide people, and distract them from the teachings Jesus.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I think this film is a huge waste, bordering on pornography.

At the risk of sounding stupid, how on earth is the film bordering on pornography? I haven't seen it (have you?) but in everything I've read about the film, I've yet to see any such criticism. Can you clarify what you meant? Thanks.

 

[verte76]

The reason I might not see this movie is because it's so graphic and gory. Maybe that's the idea. But I was really shaken up and sort of freaked out after I saw "Braveheart", even though I covered my eyes during the drawing and quartering. It was Nervous System Blood and Guts Overkill. My (then) b/f said I was shaking. Not sure I want to go there again.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Do you think it being so "graphic and gory" is going to add to or detract from the intention of the movie though?