The Passion of the Christ

I haven't seen it and don't fancy it at all.

Yours in Music

Syd

A Mel Gibson film

Not seen it, but my Mum's seen the REAL passion play - the one that only happens once a decade. I can't remember the spelling, but it's something like Brumagow or something - apparently it's very dramatic.

__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.

It's in Oberammergau and they're taking bookings for the next one already.

Passion play

Let me guess Mel has Jesus as a handsome cornfed Iowa boy and the Romans are all played by Englishmen and the Jews are all Arabs?

Matthew

I haven't seen it, and am hoping it just kinda goes away. I think it will.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Let me guess Mel has Jesus as a handsome cornfed Iowa boy

---

At the start, yes, but the controversy over this movie is about two forms of literalism: Gibson's Passion is rather divisive because it blames the Jews for killing Christ. This message has been toned down a bit in the editing room. To go by the reviews and the stills, the second half of the movie is excessively violent. The Iowa kid is literally beaten to a pulp right in front of the camera, and it takes forever.

Herman

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomK:
It's in Oberammergau

---

That's the badger! I can't believe it's nearly a decade since my mum went on it...

__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.

The general consensus so far from those that have seen it is that it is an important and impactful film. That can mean whatever you want and kinda makes the point that condemning or dismissing this film without seeing it is dumb and lazy thinking. Reminds me of those freaks who blindly turned out to protest and picket when Life of Brian and Last Temptation came out.

Has everyone heard about the woman in Wichita, Kansas who died of a heart heart attack while watching it?

I for one think Christ should have significantly darker skin and nappy hair in the film. I'm sure the Pope would agree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by herm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Let me guess Mel has Jesus as a handsome cornfed Iowa boy

---

At the start, yes, but the controversy over this movie is about two forms of literalism: Gibson's Passion is rather divisive because it blames the Jews for killing Christ. This message has been toned down a bit in the editing room. To go by the reviews and the stills, the second half of the movie is excessively violent. The Iowa kid is literally beaten to a pulp right in front of the camera, and it takes forever.

Herman

---

Well I haven't seen yet and I'm not a catholic but.....

Under all teachings of the Christian Bible the Jews (or at least the Pharisees) did hector the Romans into crucifying Jesus for being a hertic who dared to call himself God and to forgive sins (which only God can do). Probably their authority was also threatened by him and to a degree social stability with it. So if one believes the historical accuracy of the bible the Jews did have Christ killed even if they didn't actually string him up.

I'm assuming that the Passion of Christ is based on the traditional texts used for the Passion in Church services and most other artistic recreations of the last days of Christ form his entry intriumph into Jerusalem. If so then there will be a concentration on the torture Jesus went through. The beatings, the insults, the crown of thorns, the walk to the Cross and finally the Crucifiction itself. All of which serve to portray the betrayal of God by his Chosen People and that Christ, as man, suffered death etc etc.

Certainly, through the ages Roman Catholics, which Mel G is, have concentrated on this part of the suffering. Maybe because they make good statues or could be used for political and emotive purposes, maybe because it allows one to get close to the human nature of the Trinity, maybe a bit of it all? The Stations of the Cross are still used and can be very spiritually stimulating.

As I say I haven't yet seen it but I'm hoping that it will be more than just a bloodfest but instead concentrates on getting across the teachings and divinity of Christ. I suspect the violence and "Jewish issue" are probably media controversy to make the film news worthy or am I being cynical.

Tom

quote:

---

Under all teachings of the Christian Bible the Jews (or at least the Pharisees) did hector the Romans into crucifying Jesus for being a hertic who dared to call himself God and to forgive sins (which only God can do).

---

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

In the interests of equal time for the opposition, how about a movie showing the torture and execution of, say, just one of the victims of the Spanish Inquisition.

Also, I have a question, since this is one part of Christian theology I've never been clear on (and please understand that no disrespect is intended by this question). If Jesus was tortured and killed for our sins, how come we still have sins? Why are we not redeemed? Why am I still working in an office when I should be frolicking sin-free in a meadow (although frolicking is not as much fun as it's made out to be, especially if there are no sins involved)?

Ross

Yes, Tom, it's biblically true that Christ was killed by the Jews (and the Romans, too, of course) - though we're not real sure there was any single historical person who came within sniffing range of the scripture Christ.

Texts of this kind are 75 percent made up (at least).

There's just a little thing, which Matthew alluded to. Jesus being a Iowa kid, rather than a Jew among Jews. Gibson chooses to represent the Jews as Jews, however Christ looks like a handsome western European guy. One of us, who gets beaten to a pulp by the Jews.

That's what makes this movie incendiary, in a time that really doesn't need more incendiary material about the middle-east.

Herman

Ross

No disrepesct taken.

quote:

---

In the interests of equal time for the opposition, how about a movie showing the torture and execution of, say, just one of the victims of the Spanish Inquisition.

---

I thought there had been plenty of those. But yes I agree so disgusting things have been and still are committed in the name of religion. I hope not by me though.

I'm not a theologian and although a practicing (but not perfect) christian my understanding of Redemption etc is far from complete. As it says in the job description I'm a Searcher of Enlightenment rather than having reached Nirvana (a useful Buddhist term ) As far as I understand things after the "Fall" Mankind was condemned to live with and in sin and however hard they worked at it they would fail. God then sends us His Son who was fully human to live and die. In living as an example and to teach and in dieing to "descend into Hell to rise again on the third day". Through that act Christ takes our sins (future and past) upon himself and carts them off, so that when we do sin we have a chance of repentance and reconciliation with God. The problem of course is our understanding (certainly mine) is hampered by trying to fit an ineffable plan into three dimesions and into an illustrative story (which happened). We run into paradox and confusion if the story is taken too literally. Personally I prefer to see the events as a way of illustrating our relationship with God and not to dwell on the difficult bits of historical narrative.

Herm. If you are right about the casting then I agree. Christ was a Jew first and formost and to suggest that Nasty Arab looking types killed Good European types is plain wrong in the context of the Message.

quote:

---

though we're not real sure there was any single historical person who came within sniffing range of the scripture Christ.

Texts of this kind are 75 percent made up (at least).

---

Absolutely. The Gospels were written at a later date for diferent audiences, as were the Letters of St Paul. That doesn't mean to say they don't content Truth or even some degree of historical accuracy.

quote:

---

There's just a little thing, which Matthew alluded to

---

When I read that line I at first thought you were refering to a quote from the gospel but M Robinson ain't no saint.

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

quote:

---

As far as I understand things after the "Fall" Mankind was condemned to live with and in sin and however hard they worked at it they would fail. God then sends us His Son who was fully human to live and die ... Through that act Christ takes our sins (future and past) upon himself and carts them off, so that when we do sin we have a chance of repentance and reconciliation with God.

---

Tom, thanks for the explanation, but please forgive me (no pun intended) if I find it a bit confusing. Aren't the two ideas, that "after the "Fall" Mankind was condemned to live with and in sin" on the one hand and "Through that act Christ takes our sins (future and past) upon himself and carts them off" on the other, somewhat contradictory? I guess this is why you say "We run into paradox and confusion if the story is taken too literally". But isn't this pretty much the central idea of Christianity? And if we don't take it literally, in what way are we to see this "as a way of illustrating our relationship with God"? Please excuse my curiosity, but although I've lived among Christians all my life, I've never really understood these issues and no one has ever been able to explain it to me.

Ross

Let me guess Mel has Jesus as a handsome corn-fed Iowa boy and the Romans are all played by Englishmen and the Jews are all Arabs?

I just read a review today which said that, for the sake of authenticity, the film was in Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin, with English subtitles.

Thomas

Ross

You are not alone in finding this confusing. I certainly do and I was brought up discussing it with my father who does know what he's talking about.

I am not a typical Christian and have been accused of heresy by a few so don't take my ideas as gospel. The idea I'm exploring at the moment is that the Christo/Judaic tradition is about one's relationship with God (who is in himself a relationship between Father, Son & Holy Spirit (not to mention Christ as man, Christ as God or any variation of female/mother nature as portrayed through Mary)) I am definitely not of the faith that says "It is written" but would rather explore why it was and what was intended by the writing. As I said before, I view a lot of the Bible as illustrative stories, even if the events did actually happen. They are examples and parables to reveal the Nature of God and our relationshi[p with Him.

I too struggle with the Fall and Redemption through the Crucifiction especially as I don't take Genesis lterally nor the expulsion of Adam fom the Garden of Eden. So was there a Fall. Temporally I'd say no but it is human nature to sin, do wrong, whatever so in a sense we are fallen. In that context Christ dieing for our redemption then makes sense as it reaffirms our relationship with God and gives a clear signal that the journey towards perfection (or Nirvana) is more important than the arrival there.

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

Will this do for Mel Gibson's career what Dances with Wolves did for Whassisname?

Whatever anyone thinks about the absolute accuracy of the gospels (and the rest of the Holy Scriture) if you take the Phylosophical aguement of Occum's Razor (the simplest explanation possible should be accepted, unless real proof shows otherwise) then God is likely to be seen as an unnecessary complication in the Creation Story. I think Russell summed it rather well when he described the fact of the existence of the Universe as a "Brute Fact." He considered no man-made explanation reasonable...

Now another phylosophical arguement, which I hold is "The Question of Evil." Were man to truely be made in the image of God, then he must have the CHOICE between good and evil. However, God (being according to popularist Christian Theol,ogy, both Omniscient AND Omnipotent) could surely have arranged it so that our (mankind's) evil might have been expressed less inhumainly than Hitler's, Stalin's, or Mao's efforts,let alone the indivual act of murder, abuse, or rape, without compromosing the moral test given to man as created in God's image. I do wonder if this single issue, let alone all the attrocities commited in the name of various religeons, is not enough to make any inquisitive mind question the whole religeon issue as totally without reasonable basis? That Chgristians are faced with a big prolem with the question of how to look at the Jewish cornering of the Romans into crucifying the Messiah, as faced up in the premise to this film, is true enough as a fact, if you accept the truth of the Holy Scripture as set down in the four gospels. Why does mankind persist with it? It vexes me. Why should anyone want to stoke this up at this time beggars belief.

Fredrik Fiske

[This message was edited by Fredrik Fiske on SUNDAY 29 February 2004 at 01:58.]

Fredrik, Ross-

The doctrine of free will I think helps point
a direction towards personal resolution of your
questions. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine were two of the early religious scholars grappling with the implications. C.S. Lewis's
writing is a more contemporary read and deals with this and many other issues of Christian faith. As you've both probably read all of the
above, forgive the assumptions on my part.

As for the movie, I've not seen it yet but
look forward to seeing how Gibson deals with the
many issues around reconciling the subject matter to the medium, the current religious/political climate, and the films dealing with Jesus that come before it. If it
does nothing else than make each of us re-evaluate our own views and beliefs it counts for something.

kind regards,
Scott

I have to agree with Scott here when he says

quote:

---

If it does nothing else than make each of us re-evaluate our own views and beliefs it counts for something.

---

Whether one beleives in a traditional God figure or a general life force or even nothing, one should constantly be re-evaluating ones belief, testing it against what one experiences. As I said earlier there is too much paradox in the simple written word for me to take it too literally but on the other hand I find it a useful framework for thinking about "life" and how to live it. Undoubtedly organised religion (including atheism) has been manipulated and abused for personally, social, political and ethnic reasons and quite often this is used to highlight why we should bother with religion. Yet much good has come having that framework or relationship with the infinite divine. Now these are my thoughts and I certainly wouldn't wish to see others forced into excepting them, that way leads to bigoted dogma and stagnation of thought but it certainly helps me. Nor is this just a convenient way of looking at things, I do sincerely believe in the Christian teachings, the virgin birth, the resurrection and the rest of the package but as mans understanding of the universe grows so must our interpretation of the Bible evolve. I can not claim to hold the only truth and have respect for anyone who follows a religion, be it Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or even Humanist as long as it guides them toa common good and a closer understanding of God. As my father says

quote:

---

There are many paths up the mountain but only one summit.

---

and I like to see people climb.

Enough

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

I bet this thread is locked at some point!

quote:

---

Thomas Aquinas and Augustine were two of the early religious scholars grappling with the implications. C.S. Lewis's
writing is a more contemporary read and deals with this and many other issues of Christian faith. As you've both probably read all of the
above, forgive the assumptions on my part.

---

Scott, apart from dipping into Aquinas from time to time, I haven't read the works you're referring to (and, while I'm moderately interested in these issues, I'm not quite that interested in Christian theology). Could you please give us the idiot's* guide to theodicy? A quick overview of Aquinas' Summa Theologiae?

Free will and the "problem of evil" I think are actually pretty simple stuff, in philosophical terms - I'm sure most of us have debated these issues at length in undergraduate courses in any number of subjects. It's the specifics of Christian doctrine that I often find difficult to understand. For example, the apparent contradiction that Tom highlighted, between the notion of "original sin" and the idea that Jesus redeemed all of our sins. How can these two ideas be reconciled?

I'm also interested to understand how a religion in which one worships a father, son, holy ghost, mother, as well as sundry saints for various specific purposes, can be regarded as monotheistic. (Again, no disrespect is intended by this question; I'm just curious.)

Now, if you asked me similar questions about Jewish theology, I doubt I could provide any more satisfactory answers. But I guess that's why I have been an atheist for most of my life.

Ross

*By "idiot" I obviously mean me (at least on these issues), not you.

It just amazes me and depresses me that people still argue about this - the killing of Christ.

I don't know where to begin - with the historical stuff that shows that Christ was the least important person in early Christianity, with the deaths that followed as a result, but even me discussing it like that is perverse.

We're talking about the death of a single jew some 2000 yrs ago, if you think this guy was the son of god and this forms most of your spiritual world, disregarding knowledge that we gained since - good for you, but why should this ancient irrelevant belief has such effect ?

To a lesser extent (only because it is more comprehensive) I'd say the same aobut the bible - we learnt how to read it in a modern and "whole" way, to identify the various authors, to identify external influences etc. - so if there's someone still who thinks I shouldn't drive 10 kilometers on a saturday and walk in the sun instead -because it says "thou shall do no work on Saturday" - he is the crazy one that should be treated, how come he is a minister in my government ? How come we still discuss the minutes of Christ's latest hours ?

Oi vey zmir, get me outt'a here.
Omer.

[This message was edited by Vuk's son on SUNDAY 29 February 2004 at 16:23.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vuk's son:
How come we still discuss the minutes of Christ's latest hours ?

---

Omer

Firstly as a Christian, the Crucifiction is probably the most significant event in the life of Christ. It is the culmanation of God's plan for His Son. I don't expect you to believe that but it is important in our Theology.

Secondly, there has been nearly 2000 years of precedence of creating artistic works portraying the Passion, not least the Bach St matthew passion which is one of the greatest pieces of music ever composed (IMO natch).

Thirdly, in Europe and the lands it settled overseas the Christian church has had a major impact on art, politics and social welfare (not all of it good). The Bible (Old & New Testament) has had a marked influence on our everyday speech & writing. It is hardly surprising that Mel Gibson who is a Roman Catholic continues in that tradition. You may not agree with the results of his endevour but you should certainly see why he's done it.

And as one who has professed to follow Buddha at some point I'm surprised that you feel the need to concentrate on the physical detail rather than the underlying spiritual message

Tom

Actively enjoying it all