Passion Of The Christ

[Mr. Average]

Wow, Bamboo, your brief post was informative and illustrative of the "intellegentsia-elite" and how they see themselves in the context of existence on this mortal coil.

I especially like the phrase "the viewers sympathetic 'knowledge' for interpretation". I'm not sure what that means, but if it is a definition of Faith, I suppose it is as just as good as any other definition that ries to characterize the power of Faith.

[spooky girlfriend]

I have never really voiced my opinions on religion much on this board because I just don't like getting into some of the heated discussions that seem to happen every time it gets mentioned. Besides not being a confrontational person, I just don't like to see people argue. I am comfortable with who I am in my faith and afford each person here the opportunity to feel however they choose to feel. No religion is perfect and some choose not to be a part of any.

I also don't really believe that I have the music or movie analyzation skills that many of you possess, so you'll find that I usually end up just reading and not responding much to these types of threads. What I did want to post here today is a note written by my priest that was put in the bulletin at mass this morning. He is a fairly liberal person and I respect his opinion on a lot of issues. He doesn't adhere to a typical catholic outlook, but I thought it might be nice to see what one person in the religious profession had to say about this movie. It certainly doesn't mimic some of the Southern Baptist mentality often associated with the south. I just thought it would be interesting to post this.


"There is no question that many who have seen this movie found the experience a profoundly spiritual one. We know as well that certain points of the movie have aroused some heated debate. At this time, I do not intend to see the movie; it is rated "R" because of the kind of violence that is depicted in the movie. I knw that Jesus endured cruel, in humane and horrible suffering that was totally uncalled for.

I also know that there are millions in our world today who are suffereing miserably for no other reasons than that we are allowing it to happen. I think that seeing this movie could distract me from paying attention to the present day suffereing. Jesus suffered severely 2,000 years ago; it is in the past, but made present in each mass as a memorial, not as the real thing all over again. Secondly, I know I am a sinner; I don't need it pounded into my head about my sinfulness, not do I need to be beaten over the head withi how much Jesus suffered for my sins. This is only one aspect of why he suffered so grievously. The other, and for me the more compelling reason, is that He reamined faithful to revealing the God of love regardless f the suffereing others would put Him through because they did not want to hear this message and did not want to allow the message to change their hearts.

For my sake, I need to keep in mind more clearly this second reason. I grew up with the idea that suffering of an by itself was somehow meritorious. What I need to learn now, and probably do so for the rest of my life, is to come to understand as best I can that God loves me, and, because of that love, I am called to commit myself as did Jesus to being loving to others. Commitment is where I tend to fall short - not awareness of my sins."

[lapinsjolis]

Mr. Average-I agree with Bambooneedle on this one. No movie is aimed at an audience that either has disdain or indifference to for the subject matter. As for intellect and faith, mine are both woefully limited but my faith has served me far better.

Bobster-'Blood Libel' is a term I'm not an expert on but I think it's based 'on a rumor that they spread around town' on sacrilege towards the consecrated wine and bread. Graham Greene wrote a very good short story with the theme. I could be way wrong-blame google.

It's a movie, my ticket was purchased for me and I've been taught to accept things with gratitude and manners. I never let journalists or televangelists form my opinion on a movie or anything. I have a strong dislike for the film maker because of his bad movie history. He is often called a 'devout Catholic' and he does not attend Mass or believe in certain key points of the teachings. This shows an ignorance that discounts a lot of articles. I'm not homophobic nor have I be raised to be so.

I've actually seen it and the Jewish hierarchy are portrayed as people so intent on keeping their a authority that they stop at nothing at getting rid of and making an example of someone who is a threat. this is nothing new but matter of form for many leaders. They aren't blood thirsty and can't watch the torture that is enjoyed only by the torturers.

Spooky Girlfriend-Perhaps you should ask your priest how suffering of a man he follows can prove to result in anything but a great compassion for present day suffering.

There are a million misunderstandings and if I call upon a mind greater than mine, "A little learning is a dangerous thing."

[miss buenos aires]

Mr. Average:
1. I'm not sure what you mean when you compare Jesus's crucifixion to JFK's assassination or rather, Vatican II to the Warren Commission. I thought your point was that it didn't matter who killed Jesus, because his death was necessary. I think Vatican II, though I'm not entirely familiar with it, might be construed more as a new interpretation of theological history, more in line, actually, with what you were saying.
2. I was just referring to your dismissal of anti-Semitic sentiment here in the US.
3. Somehow, the Romans haven't been persecuted for this over the last couple of millennia.
4. I'm glad you found my skepticism with regard to Jesus's existence enlightening. You see, not everyone is a Christian. I don't claim to be coming from a Christian point of view. I'm not dismissing your arguments out of hand just because you are a devout Christian. So, yes, my refusal to believe everything in the Gospels out of hand has an effect on anything basing itself on the Gospels and claiming to be historical fact.
5. I was commenting on what I think could be an issue for a movie about a divinity: showing exclusively his physical, human, corporeal, carnal side.

By the way, my "anti-Gibson bias" was not based on the man himself, but rather on my opinion of and reaction to his other movies. I think that's a perfectly valid thing to bring into a discussion of his current movie.

[Mr. Average]

Thank you, Miss BA. I respect your opinion. I learn much from these exchanges.

[pophead2k]

Mr. A - although I don't agree with you often, I feel that your eloquent and lucid comments here are a positive reflection of your strong Christian faith.

Spooky - I liked the comments your priest made, and I believe that he is a bold person for voicing his opinions.

I have no interest in seeing this film, for many of the reasons others have outlined above. Because it is of a religious nature, no arguments can be won here. It is what it is and it will mean different things to different people; to some, like myself, it will mean nothing at all.

I despise Mel Gibson, but I believe you can separate the art from the artist. Otherwise, how could I enjoy my Michael Jackson CDs? I did have to laugh though when Mel responded to negative reviews from the New York Times' Frank Rich by saying he wanted to "kill him. Rip his intestines out. Kill his dog". Clearly Mel hasn't read the parts of the Bible about turning the other cheek, etc. etc. Maybe that's in the Old Testament, written by the Jews.

[miss buenos aires]

Mr. A, the feeling is mutual.

[Lipstick]

What's amazing is:

1. How passionate people of all views are about this film/topic.

2. How the "Institutional Christian" religions of so many varieties have categorically endorsed this movie while categorically denouncing the Last Temptation. And usually without actually seeing either one.

3. How hate-filled people throughout time have managed to find excuses to persecute.

4. How [imposter] Christians can persecute Jews, when their proclaimed Lord was Jewish. *insert pensive head-shaking* I just don't get it.

I haven't seen this film yet. (Yes, I did see the Last Temptation and found it very interesting.) I will probably see it at the Movie Tavern so I can go out and have some Fruit of the Vine during the flaying. I'm one of those visual artist-types myself, and if I see something like that the images will plague me for days. I don't feel the need to relive Christ's suffering. His death was completely common. (Roman records prove that.) What is uncommon is what happened afterward.

[RedShoes]

This seemed fitting for this thread:

http://www.theonion.com/news/

Enjoy

[Misha]

Red...

Funny, FunnY, FUNNY!!!

[HungupStrungup]

This is a good thread in which to post the contents of a colum I read in the NY Times this week. I think it's instructive for people like Mr. Gibson to remember that these events happened over 2000 years ago, and scholarship on the period is always evolving. The gospels themselves were written decades after the events they depicted, and the story differs among them in many details. The "may his blood be on our hands and our children's for all time" language is only in Matthew, for instance. There are other contemporaneous versions of the life of Jesus that have been dismissed for reasons sometimes sectarian or political, choices that may or may not have been valid.

To maintain your faith, you have to pick the events and utterances that have meaning and resonance for you. To blithely proclaim that some version of events has NO HISTORICAL BASIS is to practically guarantee that your own (or Mr. Gibson's) will be similarly dismissed.


February 28, 2004

Peter, Paul, Mary . . . and God

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Op-ed Columnist

For a provocative look at the emergence of Christianity two millenniums ago, skip Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and examine instead some of the fascinating recent scholarship on the early church.

Interest in the early church has blossomed because of "Passion" and the "Da Vinci Code" thriller. But "Passion" and especially "The Da Vinci Code" take great liberties with history, while serious research has gotten much less attention.

Consider the newly published "Gospel of Mary of Magdala." It offers a new translation by Karen King, a Harvard Divinity School professor, of the obscure Gospel of Mary, which was lost for 1,500 years before two fragmentary versions were found.

The Gospel of Mary offers a proto-feminist recounting of a scene in which the resurrected Jesus tells the disciples to preach, and then leaves them. The disciples are emotional and tearful — until Mary Magdalene takes charge and bucks them up.

"Do not weep and be distressed," she tells them, and, sure enough, they pull themselves together. Then Mary begins to relate Jesus' private teachings to her, saying, "I will teach you about what is hidden from you."

But the disciples rebel at being instructed by a woman. Andrew and Peter virtually accuse Mary of making it all up, and she starts crying. Levi intercedes, scolding: "Peter, you have always been a wrathful person. . . . Assuredly, the Savior's knowledge of her is completely reliable. That is why he loved her more than us."

Bibles, like history, are written by the winners. There were innumerable early gospels and teachings (some 85 percent of Christian literature from the first two centuries has been lost). Some won approval and entered the New Testament, and the rest were condemned as heresies or died out on their own. The Gnostic Gospels and other early writings suggest that initially the role of women was hotly debated, but ultimately the idea prevailed that men should dominate.

"God's pattern is for men to be the leaders, both in the church and in the family," Pat Robertson writes in his best-selling book "Bring It On." He cites I Timothy: "Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them."

Likewise, Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak."

That view is hard to square, though, with other accounts that portray Mary Magdalene as a favorite of Jesus'. The "Pistis Sophia" scripture quotes Jesus as telling Mary Magdalene: "You are she whose heart is more directed to the Kingdom of Heaven than all your brothers."

And the Gospel of Philip says of Mary Magdalene: "She is the one the Savior loved more than all the disciples, and he used to kiss her on her mouth often. . . . The rest of the disciples . . . said to him, `Why do you love her more than us?' "

These gospels aren't necessarily suggesting a romance between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and in any case their value is much debated — traditionalists argue that they are prized to make ideological points rather than to clarify history. The Gospel of Mary was written in her name but not by her, and apparently was written in the early second century, long after the events it describes.

Still, the dispute over the role of women can be seen raging in many early Christian writings. The Gospel of Thomas even quotes Simon Peter as saying, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."

Susan Haskins, in her history of the idea of Mary Magdalene, says that egalitarian principles in the New Testament initially prevailed in the first-century Christian community. But then, she writes, Christianity gradually returned to the traditional patriarchal system of Judaism.

That suppression of female leadership may be behind the labeling of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute, starting with a sermon by Pope Gregory the Great in 591. And recent scholarship has established that Junius, whom Paul calls "distinguished among the apostles," was actually Junia, a woman whose name was made masculine by later translators.

How should we regard these alternative versions of Biblical events? They are a reminder that there were competing strains in the early Christian church, and that different outcomes were possible. My guess is that the ordination of women would not have been controversial if Mary Magdalene, rather than St. Peter, had emerged as the first pope.

[selfmademug]

HS, what would I do if I didn't have you to read the NYT for me!?!

I'm totally fascinated by this stuff-- biblical history and the provenance of today's versions of Christianity-- though I am an atheist. The half smidgen of knowledge I have in this area comes from reading the books of Elaine Pagels. Her latest one is called-- full circle time here folks-- BEYOND BELIEF.

She's a great 'New Yorker' level read on these topics.

[pophead2k]

Here's an interesting take on the whole thing by a politically conservative writer, Christopher Hitchins. (Its anti-Gibson, so if you are not, be warned).

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096323/

[bobster]

Haven't read this piece, but did read Hitchens (as usual) beautifully written but somewhat over-emotive, mildly irrational (but pretending to be 100% pure rationality) and ad-hominum attack laden article on the subject in "Vanity Fair." It was actually a LOT more considered an intelligent than what I heard him say on C-Span, where he basically called Mel Gibson an antisemite and worse.

Classifying Hitchens as conservative is not exactly correct. He's a one-time fairly radical leftist who, lately, has been morphing into something else because he supported the Iraq war and was super-pissed that more of his fellow lefties didn't follow on. He quit "The Nation" and, reportedly, praise from Gore Vidal has been removed from new editions of his books. In a recent article in the new L.A. alternative weekly, "CityBeat" he said he didn't regret anything his leftist writings. called himself a "republican" but they typed it out as with a small "r" so who knows....? Apparently, he has become so personally involved with the plight of Iraqui Kurds, it's kind of trumped every other issue for him/

He is also no social conservative. He's an atheist who is against abortion and once wrote a book attacking Mother Teresa. Well, at least he seems to be his own man.

[HungupStrungup]

In a world where we all love to classify things and put them into neat little boxes ("These are things that are yellow, and these are thigs that are blue" is how we start out learning about the world.), it's remarkable how often the old "liberal/conservative" or "left/right" labels fail miserably to describe anyone's views. It's trying to reduce our philosophy and reactions to a three-dimensional world so as to place us somewhere on a line, which after all has but one dimension.

I'm surprised anyone does it, and I'm even more surprised how rarely such labels are challenged.

[Lipstick]

"Only people can be one dimensional."
-R. Green, my college drawing teacher

[BlueChair]

Lipstick, tell your husband to come back to us!

[pophead2k]

B and HS: Yes, mea culpa on the 'conservative' label of Hitchins. I admittedly was basing my label on the very few things by him I have read (a piece on education in Harper's and several articles on the war). Lacking a broader base of knowledge about him, its unfair to paint him as such. Thanks for the info on Hitchens. I like his writing style a lot and would like to look into some of his stuff as he does seem like an interesting character.

Remember when Dennis Miller used to be all over the board politically before he became so smarmy and hawkish?

[HungupStrungup]

The entertaining thing about Hitchens is that he goes for the jugular. There's no veneer of politesse about him. If he doesn't like someone, there's no doubt at all about it. He's a scream when he gets to talking about the English royalty.

[bambooneedle]

From what I've read, the film heavily relies on, assumes a lot about, the viewer's sympathetic 'knowledge' for interpretation of many of the ideas portrayed. So, Miss BA and many others, it's just not intended for us.

Wow, Bamboo, your brief post was informative and illustrative of the "intellegentsia-elite" and how they see themselves in the context of existence on this mortal coil.

I especially like the phrase "the viewer's sympathetic 'knowledge' for interpretation". I'm not sure what that means, but if it is a definition of Faith, I suppose it is as just as good as any other definition that tries to characterize the power of Faith.

Mr. Average-I agree with Bambooneedle on this one. No movie is aimed at an audience that either has disdain or indifference to for the subject matter. As for intellect and faith, mine are both woefully limited but my faith has served me far better.

I wanted to put this reply in context, so hope all the quoting is excused.

Mr. Average, "just not intended for us" was a comment on Gibson first and foremost.

By folks having "sympathetic 'knowledge'" I think you're well aware that I meant folks sharing opinion about a set of doctrines and prescribed ideas regarding Jesus, so the movie is for those folk in particular. They'll recognize them in the film and have an experience about it. Some might call it knowledge, instead of opinion, so I used commas.

Lapins - agreed, but one wouldn't necessarily need either disdain or indifference to feel that this movie is not intended for them in the first place ... those would just be a couple of reasons. One could feel alienated by the film simply because they won't recognize the symbols or axioms of much of what it is trying to put across... or, because they might not feel like being emotionally manipulated... I have some interest in what the religious ideas are, but wouldn't necessarily adhere to them and certainly don't follow them, so I'd hardly rely on an emotion-charged hyped up movie to revise over what they are.

Wow, Bamboo, your brief post was informative and illustrative of the "intellegentsia-elite" and how they see themselves in the context of existence on this mortal coil.

I thought it made a good point rather aptly. At least it didn't take an essay..... Yes, you are quite correct Mr. Average, we would hope that we're not wasting time.

The movie is intended, quite plainly and transparently, for exploiting emotion invested in the subject matter. Mel Gibson would get off on how he could do that... it would ensure that his name be considered relevant and important for a few more years and he can keep amusing himself as he pleases. Who knows what Mel Gibson really believes? Point being, people play games. They politicize their own "beliefs" - to use, to wield, to exploit, to have fun with, to feel powerful about. That's probably all Gibson is really doing.

The Mad Max movies were very good...

[lapinsjolis]

Isn't that the nature of any art? To manipulate senses, emotions and intellect? Just because you REALLY don't like what he is saying doesn't change that or make it any different from any other movie. It's nature of the beast to try to get a point across or an idea expressed through an artistic medium.

[bambooneedle]

Just because you REALLY don't like what he is saying ...

Whoa, wait a minute. I don't know what would give you that idea. I'm by no means anti-religion or against anyone having their opinion. This movie can't make me interested, that's all.

[noiseradio]

I have not yet seen the film, and so will withhold any comments about the film itself until I know for sure. The only comment I have at this time is that it seems to me that either praising or condemning the film without seeing it is incredibly ignorant. Not that anyone should feel obligated to see it. I certainly feel no such obligation. In fact, I feel rather reluctant about it for many reasons I won't yet go into (as I don't know if my fears are justified). But to say ahead of time that it will be wonderful or that it will be horrible is ludicrous. It reminds me very much of the religious fundamentalists who stood in protest against The Last Temptation of Christ, without having seen it (or indeed without even a bit of accurate information). To hear these folks tell it, Christ was to be portrayed as a homosexual adulterer in the film, which he was not. If they had bothered to see it, they would most likely have left with a newfound appreciation for the humanity of Christ without having lost an ounce of faith in His divinity. Or maybe they'd hate it. But at least they'd know why.

I don't much care if the film turns out to be good or bad. People I respect very much have said both things about it--after having seen it. But they have earned the right to discuss the merits of the film. Sounds like most of us have not.

[Mr. Average]

I've seen the film. It is a beautiful epic. MOST of the prejudicial comments made about it are untrue. The film is the antithesis of misogyny, portraying women in a very powerful and influential light. Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a principled but political man. He is not portrayed as a weak, snivelling character, but instead he presents a powerful and strong persona, overall.

In a number of scenes the Jewish people are portrayed as benevolent, compassionate, and kind. Simon of Cyrene, Veronica, the wailing women, and more than one of the soldiers who carried out the crucifixion.

I saw the film as a work of art. It was a beautiful thing to behold.
I recommend it.

[pophead2k]

Your point is well taken Noise, which is exactly why I won't comment on the content or depictions in the film. I'm not going to see it because I don't want to support Mel Gibson, a well-known homophobe and someone who's brand of Catholicism I am uncomfortable with. By the way, I don't go to any of Mel Gibson's films- not just this one.

Having said that, I feel that people who want to discuss the filmmaker, or the controversy surrounding the film, have every right to comment on it, as long as they don't portray themselves as having seen the film. Its two different issues really.