> On the subject on The Passion Of Christ, all these
talk about it being anti-semitic and not being accurate enough...
I think those who are saying these just TOTALLY missed the point
of the film. It's like seeing a few black little dots on a corner
of a huge whiteboard.
Why, any great evil will look good if you
stand back far enough. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, basically their message
and intent was the upliftment of their respective peoples. When
you look at the general outline of their rhetoric, it's all noble
sentiments and beautiful ideas. It's in the details... the little
black dots you spoke so disparagingly of... that their true nature
> Anyone can quote the Bible for their own
agenda. Many have feared at the apocalyptic imagery in the Book
Of Revelation for years, yet only a few truly know what it's talking
Just as Gibson through Emmerich/Brentano has just done.
> One can lift a line from the Bible to support
any of their sick ideas, be it homosexuality, male chauvinism, exhibitionism
Or anti-Jewish bias
> but if you read where the line is taken
from, it's taken outta context 99% most of the time.
Just as Gibson's movie takes much of the gospels
out of context, again thanks to Emmerich/Brentano.
> So to say that the New Testament is anti-semitic is totally ridiculous.
Is the Catholic church itself wrong? According
to their teachings, please note passages my article and the articles
I linked to, the church admits there is anti-Jewish bias in the
New Testament, that it has its own historical context, and that
the New Testament has been used historically to fuel anti-Semitism.
Care must be taken, or guidelines the church itself has set must
be followed (again, cited in the articles), that this anti-Jewish
bias be not emphasized.
Of course, Gibson does recognize recent church teachings, particularly
the Nostra Aetate. Which all faithful Catholics should keep in mind.
> Contrary to some beliefs, Christ was not
murdered. Not by the Jews or the Romans. He laid down his life willingly.
Go read the Bible for yourself.
I've read it; the question is, how closely
has Gibson read it? His movie is more faithful to Emmerich/Brentano
than to the various Gospels he has so blithely patched together
to create a distorted picture.
>Scholars' commentaries are useful, but they
are after all interpretations or view points, not the real thing.
They are based on long research of source
materials including the bible, historical documents AND official
church documents, and they are an important complement to any interpretation
of the bible. Again, I have a quote in my article from official
church teachings exhorting knowledge of scholarly writings.
In effect; pick-and-choose theology, which Gibson seems to practice,
is, like "a little knowledge," a dangerous thing. The church in
general and the Jesuits in particular demand that we use our heads
as well as our hearts. It doesn't suffice that something is just
moving (tho I certainly found nothing in the picture moving); it
must be rational and consistent with history as well.
> It's only there to aid you to understand
a bit more about the Scriptures, that's all.
It's crucial in differentiating from orthodox
Catholic teaching and heresy.
> How can one judge the movie on its accuracy? Were you there at
the time of crucifixion? Did you travel back in time to find out
the actual facts? None of us did. Most of them are just based on
history records and books, which again can be inaccurate.
But are better guesses than the questionable
writings of a 19th century nun and the German Romantic poet who
"compiled" (composed) her writings.
> So all these just seem to take people's
focus away on the real aim of the film - which is God's love for
us. That Jesus died for ALL our sins - past, present & future. I
think it's silly to be nitpicking at a film so beautiful (in fact,
the best Jesus film done so far)
Have you seen Pasolini's The Gospel According to Matthew? Simple,
beautiful, and TOTALLY FAITHFUL to the Gospel of Mark... which is
more than I can say for Gibson's religious turd.
As for the message of the movie - read above regarding noble messages
and the context in which they are presented. That's why I titled
my second article "The perversion of Christ" - because Gibsons'
movie perverts the message of Christ.
> and missing out on the fact that Jesus loves
all of us.
Do we see that in the movie? He suffers and dies, but you need to
know the rest of the story (which the movie does not provide) to
know that he did it out of love. For all you know, he was just some
hapless Jew pulled off from the streets.
> It's not just the Jews who crucified Him.
It's ALL our sins that put Him on the cross. That He so loved us
that He is willing to come down to Earth as a human and die for
us, so that we can be accepted into God's kingdom and be as one
Think about that more than to just focus on all the minor & irrelevant
Except Pilate? Gibson's movie (thanks to Emmerich
and Brentano) practically gives him a pass - even more than the
acutal Gospels do.
> But then like what someone (was it Frank Zappa?) once said, there's
only two kinda folks, those who get it & those who don't.
So please... try and get it, will ya?