Anyone one seen The Christ,

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, Cecil B. DeMille is still my favorite bible director. I love the way he chose to narrate "The Ten Commandments" himself. What a guy!

And for me, that wooden Charleton Heston will always be Moses and Anne Baxter will be Nefertiri. "Oh Moses, Moses! You magnificent fool!"

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I love the Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, The Robe and the other epic religious films of the era. I think this was the perfect time to make religious films, as men running around in skirts and brae chested was saucy enough for the times.

Religious films, like all others are in it for the profit. And to keep up with the times you have to be more graphic, more visually stunning and more controversial to be viable commercial success. This demand that pits the tale vs. the rendering makes modern religious films distateful to me. So Mel can show Jesus being tortured, it will probably bring success. If I wish to view a religious film I'll dig out my copy of the ten Commandments and watch the red sea part in super cheesey 50's special effect style.

-Colly

 

[CharleyH]

well today when going to see butterfly effect, the matinee was a huge line of "old folks" into theatre one? Does that help? lol - ya thought so.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Consider this:

In the time of Christ's crusifiction, attending the event of a man's brutal death was considered high entertainment. Crusifiction, gladeators, ect.

What is different today?

Some might say that we prefer our violence to be *fake* (ie. movies and professional wrestling) and that is a good sign. I don't particularly agree.

However, a point can be made that people have not changed all that much since that time. Or, as the bible sais, "there is nothing new under the sun" People are the same now, and need (if you believe that is) saving just exactly the same as they did then. Christ died for *those* sinners just as he dies for *us* sinners, and *us* sinners are really no better and no worse than *those* sinners. (even those of us who won't be seing the show.)

I kind of think that is part of the point Gibson is trying to make. I'm actually not a christian anymore, but when I was, I saw a passion play and they are quite powerful. I do believe that for many the movie will be a powerful experience. And although a movie can never show you what it is to *be* the one suffering, it can show you the full range of emotions that you would experience being witness to such a thing. And christianity *is* about being a witness.

From a Christian standpoint, I do believe that the crucifiction is every bit as important as what happened before and after.

I don't know about the whole "anti-sematic" theme, but with the timing such as it is, I do wonder why no one has questioned if it's "anti-ismlamic" Movies like this are going to make emotions run very high amoung devout believers, and probably increase the feeling of many that we are in a holy war in which we are the side of right and God, and that we must prevail at all cost. I also think that it is going to increase the viewpoint currently being propagated that America (sorry, USA) is a *Christian* nation, when in fact, the United States is a nation of many faiths, Judaism and Islam included.

Personally, I wonder how much of this movie is a form of subtle propaganda, to increase emotional religious furry in these current times of turmoil. Perhaps it was not meant as that at all, but for me, the timing is suspect. And I was a big fan of Gibson's earlier work- "Conspiracy Theory"

 

[Belegon]

So Mel's dad is an idiot...

It does not mean Mel himself shares his fathers feelings in any way.

My own paternal grandfather, if raised from the dead, would immediately suffer another fatal heart attack at the site of my wedding picture. My father chose not to accept his fathers racist indoctrination and it is because of this decision that I have my happy life and my beautiful children.

In the lack of other evidence, his fathers views should not be attributed to the son, period.

I will probably see this movie. I will try to avoid pre-judgement, but that is a difficult road. As evidenced by my argument above, easily seen as a pro-Mel one rather than a neutral one.

 

[Dirt Man]

I mean no disrespect, but I've always wondered how much pain and suffering you can experience when you know you're God? It always seemed to me that Jesus must have been wholly human when he was on earth, but I understand that's not what the theologians believe.

---dr.M.

Imagine if you will that there is an ant hill in a nearby wilderness. And that you have become rather protective of them after a time. Then one day you see several bulldozers riping away at this wilderness where your ants are, and they are headed directly at your anthill. You want to save them but how do you do it? If you try to move the ants they just make their way back to the anthill, and maybe even bite you in the prossess. The same thing happens when you try to move the whole anthill. And no matter how much you yell and scream, or stomp your feet at them they can't understand you. But if you could become an ant, and still hang on to your humanity at the same time you would actually be able to communicate the danger that they are in. You could then save them. To do this you'd actually have to be an ant, and a man both at the same time. You'd have to be the father, and the son both. To accomplish this you'd have to also be of a spiritual nature to make it all work. And thus, the Father, son, and the Holy Ghost. The triad of God. Each the master of their own domain, and thus the servant to that domain as well. And each always together even separate as they are. For they are one, and all the creator of all things. We only live in a three dimensional world in the here and now, God lives in all dimensions at the same time, and outside of time as well.

Notice that I didn't go into the pain that God goes through every nanosecond because of Lucifer, and all of mankind's sins. And yes, God feels pain that would make the horror of a battlefield seem like a playful kindergarten romp.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Dirt Man]

Double dipped.

 

[English Lady]

I love your post sweetnpetite...I think you make a great point....amd i found myself nodding my head in total agreement with all you said.


I must say the list of some of the violence involved churned my stomach but i still think I want to see this film. Maybe Gibson is doing it for selfish reasons but maybe he is sincere and he wants to make a difference in peoples lives using this film.....and I am sure it will get people thinking. Well this thread has certainly got people thinking and talking!


I think that this can be an opportunity for many christians to share their faith...and in my eyes that has got to be a good thing.


Dirtman...wow..what a great analogy! i must try and remember it....great point!

 

[Pure]

There is a real sadomasochist element in Christianity since the beginning. Consider the flagellants; who still exist in Opus Dei, today. Mortifiers of the flesh go way back. Even the brilliant Simone Weil somehow found it appropriate to starve herself to death. The philosopher/theologian Origen castrated himself, as an offering to God. Suffering has a bizarre attraction.

The reviewers who say the spiritual message is obscured by the blood, are neglecting a key point:

A minister interviewed said, "If the blood saves, then the more blood, the more salvation." i.e, this is Mel's view.

Ever heard, "Washed in the blood of the lamb." Need lots of blood.

Also the doctrine of 'vicarious atonement' demands a lot of blood.
Somehow that blood is to 'pay' for all the blood (punishment) that might have been exacted of mankind.

These ideas all betray a weird literalism. I.e., if each human owes a pint of blood, and there have been 6 billion humans, then 6 billion pints of the Lamb's blood are necessary.

Or, if each human should suffer X amount, then the Savior/Scapegoat should suffer 6 billion X amt; same total.


Please note, Dirt Man, that 'getting the message out' is a rather different concept. All you need is a *very impressive and charismatic man; possibly one who dies just as we do.

Physical resurrection has always been debated. Its necessity seems dubious. If the point is something miraculous to convince hearer/seers, that could be done prior to the Messenger's death; e.g, raising the dead; making mountains disappear; making the Roman occupiers all drop dead, etc. Something really dramatic like materializing Isaiah, or Moses would do the trick, I think.

If the point is that God/faith overcome death, then simply have Jesus head cut off; then he reaches down, picks it up, re-attaches it and walks away.

J.

 

[Dirt Man]

Please note, Dirt Man, that 'getting the message out' is a rather different concept. All you need is a *very impressive and charismatic man; possibly one who dies just as we do.

Physical resurrection has always been debated. Its necessity seems dubious. If the point is something miraculous to convince hearer/seers, that could be done prior to the Messenger's death; e.g, raising the dead; making mountains disappear; making the Roman occupiers all drop dead, etc. Something really dramatic like materializing Isaiah, or Moses would do the trick, I think.

If the point is that God/faith overcome death, then simply have Jesus head cut off; then he reaches down, picks it up, re-attaches it and walks away.

J. [/B]

Actually, Jesus did raise the dead, and in front of witnesses. And as for the rest of the points you try to make here it wouldn't matter if he had done all of those things too. If you don't believe he raised the dead over 2,000 years ago, then why would you believe that he had done the other things as well? You wouldn't. People believe what they want to believe. And there is a name for those who don't believe things unless they see, or feel it themselves. They're called Doubting Thomases after the disiple that said he wouldn't believe Jesus had risen until he could put his fingers through the wounds of the risen Christ made by the nails on the cross. So Jesus let him feel them, and then admonished him for his lack of faith.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Guest]

 

[raphy]

I imagine I'll see this, although I don't get to the theatres too often, so it may have to wait until it hits the movie rental stores. But I see no reason not to see it.

Besides, I'm a big Mel Gibson fan. I don't think I've ever seen a Mel Gibson movie that I haven't liked.

Added to that, I have to admit - I personally got/get very frustrated with statues of the crucifixion that I see in churches. He stands there, with his arms out, his face in a beatific expression of peace, his eyes closed and his arms relaxed.

Crucifixion fucking hurt. And people should not forget that. When people remember Christ on the cross, I fully believe that they should be reminded of the sheer agony, the tendons stretched out in the neck from screaming, the eyes wide open and staring, biceps and forearms bulging from the pain of having nails driven through your wrists, fists clenched, back arched away from the wood.

I actually sketched my personal opinions about the crucifixion of Christ, about 10 or so years ago - I'll try and find it and scan it in.

 

[NoJo]

And there is a name for those who don't believe things unless they see, or feel it themselves.

Scientists?

I discussed the miracles with a Quaker scientist once; he didn't appear to regard the truth or otherwise of the miracles as that important to his faith. I have to say I found his Christianity very appealing.

 

[Dirt Man]

Scientists?

I discussed the miracles with a Quaker scientist once; he didn't appear to regard the truth or otherwise of the miracles as that important to his faith. I have to say I found his Christianity very appealing.

To be honest, neither do I. Jesue did the miracles for the Jews of that time to complete the prophesy of his coming as their Messiah. The miracles were done for the purpose of identifying himself as the true Christ, the embodyment of God. The Hebrews, the very chosen of God, have always required miracles from God. It is just their way. And these miracles of Jesus did turn many Jews of that time into acknowledging Jesus as God incarnet. So they weren't completely wasted by any means.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Pure]

Dirt Man,

Yes, I know Jesus is said to have raised the dead, though no witnessess accts exist. If he had instantly killed the entire Roman army in Israel (or simply transported them back to Rome in cages), THAT might have made the history books.
(As you know, he's barely mentioned in any history book, among all the tumult and agitation of the time.)

You miss the main point: Why all the blood? Isn't it awfully literalist and concrete to think the Savior must lose _quarts_ of blood to atone. Why not, one drop! Indeed, why not have the savior sacrifice one (real) lamb? (That would be symbolic.)

Indeed, crucifixion need involve only minimal blood. You suffocate because you're hanging by the arms.

And by the way, please explain why any one person's being punished [for sin he didn't have] can take away the need (assuming there is one) for punishing others for their actual sins, i.e., vicarious atonement?

If your kids go and vandalize their school, can you take away their guilt by going to the principal and having him beat _you_; or by going to jail on their behalf?

I know you can pay off the damages, but surely that doesn't take away the guilt, only the financial consequences.

PS. There is also a term for those who believe everything they hear or read: 'credulous'. Just kidding DM. I'm sure you're a person of faith; you needn't question others' faith, just because they don't buy your dogma.

 

[Boota]

I've seen no compelling evidence that Jesus even existed. I used to take it for granted that even if there was nothing divine about him, he was probably a legend based on a real man. The more I have looked into it, the more he looks like Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyan. That's not to say the entirety of his message is bad. I just see it as fiction with a moral.

As far as the movie goes, I will probably see it after the hype dies down a bit. And I'll judge it as a good or bad movie, not a religious experience. To me, all these people claiming that seeing this movie is akin to that, are really cheapening the term 'religious experience'.

 

[Guest]

And I'll judge it as a good or bad movie, not a religious experience. To me, all these people claiming that seeing this movie is akin to that, are really cheapening the term 'religious experience'.

Simply well put, Boota. - Perdita

 

[Quint]

Not to digress (oh who am I kidding?), but you raised my main reason for choosing not to be a Christian, Pure: the notion that another man's death somehow releases me from sins I may or may not commit 2000 years later.

Back to the movie. From my experience, it has been immensely popular thus far; I work in directory assistance, and since its release, all my movie look-ups have been for "The Passion." However, I had no idea it was going to be a bloodbath, and I fear for the constitution of several of the sweet ladies I gave showtimes to. I will not be seeing it in theater, nor in video, nor in illegal download, and that's not because I choose not to follow the story. I find all sorts of value in a godly life; ungodly death is not one of them to me.

 

[BlackSnake]

I saw the movie last night. Drama effects, I thought. Everyone was silent afterwards. Being in the Bible-belt, I figured the reaction to be normal.

I like Mel Gibson. I got all the Lethal Weapon movies, and enjoy them all about twice a year.

Question: Why are people getting upset when someone says that the Jews killed Jesus? Have they not been paying attention all their lives in Church?

Jesus was a Jew. Lived and preached in a Jewish community. The only people that were not Jewish were Roman.

This shows me how fake some people belief systems are. A movie can shake them to the core. How weak is that?

As a child, I was brought up in a Roman Catholic church. This movie was not a religious experience for me. Nor would I expect it to be. It's a freakin' movie created by men.

To me, religious experiences are personal between me and my God...my god can't be understood by man.

edited to add a few lines

 

[Guest]

 

[English Lady]

Now Pure I'm no theologian and i don't know all the fancy wordy stuff but I think all the blood illustrations in the New Testament come from the old testament way of thinking.

The way they dealt with sins was in blood. They would kill a lamb or some such "Clean" animal and atone for their sins that way. Now I am not sure where this starts but it is mentioned in the Cain and Abel Story then you have the bit where Abraham is going to sacrifice his son Isaac but God (seeing his faith) provides a handy goat and they sacrifice that instead.

The imagery of the bible is often aimed at the people about at that time, so the blood image worked for them....the more blood; the cleaner,the purer that blood the more sins you had forgiven.

Jesus was not just any old man. He was God....how he took all the sins I don't know...you can't concretely KNOW you have to believe.

I think it comes down to the same principle as in the old testament...God's way of dealing with Sin....taking a pure and innocent being and sacrificing it.

Now I know you're going to "tut" and give out an analogy..maybe like the virgin being left out for a dragon and the dragon then going on to burn the village down anyway! I think the sacrifice system didn't work. God needed a fix for it and voila..Jesus. One pure,Godly and "willing" sacrifice for all.

It is difficault getting your brain around the fact that Jesus died for you

"For God so loved the world he gave his one and only son that all those who believe in him would not die but have eternal life" John 3:16


He loved me so much that he hung on that cross for ME. For MY sins for MY redemption. Hell that's on hell of a guilt trip! The most perfect bloke to walk this earth died because I swear,I blaspheme, I get jealous, I tell lies.....I mean it really gets you down. I've been there. Guilt I've felt it.

But then think of it as the best present ever. It is a gift. It is given freely and it is given to YOU. That is what blows me away. Jesus Loved me so much he died for me. Wow. ultimate love. I was that important. That makes me feel damn special and I accept that gift with pride and joy because to throw it back in his face ....well I can't think of doing that.



Now I feel out of my depth sometimes in these debates because my faith is a simple one that I have had since being a child and my belief is still very child like in it's acceptance but I hope i have got something of worth over here.



Raphy...I agree with you....Jesus was not smiling/looking peaceful/at ease on the cross. I would definitely be interested in seeing the picture you have done.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I love your post sweetnpetite...I think you make a great point....amd i found myself nodding my head in total agreement with all you said.


I must say the list of some of the violence involved churned my stomach but i still think I want to see this film. Maybe Gibson is doing it for selfish reasons but maybe he is sincere and he wants to make a difference in peoples lives using this film.....and I am sure it will get people thinking. Well this thread has certainly got people thinking and talking!


I think that this can be an opportunity for many christians to share their faith...and in my eyes that has got to be a good thing.


Dirtman...wow..what a great analogy! i must try and remember it....great point!

Really, I said something that made sence? That's good, I was getting so tired toward the end. I sometimes wonder if I said what I meant to say, by the time I get done saying it

If anybody thinks it's a spiritual experience to see the movie, then for them it *is* and I don't think it's for anybody else to say otherwise. I had a spiritual experience reading "The Poisonwood Bible." It will be between you and your g/God/ess/es (whichever one or ones you believe or worship) but anything could be a conduit for that- even a hollywood movie. why not?

A paster told me a joke a bout a guy who challenges god. He says he can make anything god can make. God takes him up and says go ahead, so the guy gets a big ol pile a mud and starts to form a man. "Ahh," says God, "You have to get your OWN dirt."

All things come from the Sourse, so all things are just as holy and as worthy of being a conduit for someones spirituality.

That's my take on what I persieve as a touch of 'spiritual snobbery' found on this thread, no disrespect intended to all who disagree.

 

[English Lady]

Yup you said something that made sense..twice now!!!


I think anything can cause a spiritual experience. I've had spiritual experiences reading porn,having an orgasm,watching birds flying, watching The Matrix..oh and many other times. My God speaks to me on a wavelength he knows i'm tuned in to

 

[Pure]

Black Snake said, "Question: Why are people getting upset when someone says that the Jews killed Jesus? Have they not been paying attention all their lives in Church?

Jesus was a Jew. Lived and preached in a Jewish community. The only people that were not Jewish were Roman."

Well, that narrows it down, doesn't it.

The Jewish lands were occupied by the Roman army, which killed and crucified hundreds if not thousands of Jews.

Now, you might believe a Jewish elite felt threatened in their accomodations with Rome.

You might believe some Jewish priests were exercized about a Messiah claimant--- though that has happened before and after Jesus and it is not a capital offense to make the claim and be wrong. See the Shabbatai Zevi fellow, 1654

http://www.jhom.com/topics/fish/messiah.html

Even were the Jews in a stew about a Jewish heretic, it would be vastly unpatrotic to hand him over to the Romans. This would be like the Frenchmen in occupied France handing a protestant--or even insane-- Frenchman over to the Nazis.

Far more likely, is that the Romans saw or heard of or were fed stories about a popular agitator (even if the agitator saw himself as non political and unconcerned with Roman occupation). Not wanting to take chances with stability, they executed him (and countless others).

A further consideration is that the Gospel writers were writing at a time when Rome still was dominant. Hence it's extremely unwise to be casting Rome in a bad light, as brutally executing an innocent. That would get a Xtian sect into a lot of trouble. Hence the writers' interest in MINimizing the Roman responsibility for the crucifixion and placing it the only other possible place, the Jews. We know Pilate in fact had no problem calling for (and carrying out) executions of troublesome people.

In sum, it's likely the Jews got a bad rap from the Gospel writers, and certain that they did for a thousand years after, which is why Pope John XXIII addressed the issue of Jewish collective responsibility, and denied it. *And we know Mel disagrees with these and other reformed doctrines from John's Vatican Councils.*

J.

 

[Dirt Man]

Dirt Man,

Yes, I know Jesus is said to have raised the dead, though no witnessess accts exist. If he had instantly killed the entire Roman army in Israel (or simply transported them back to Rome in cages), THAT might have made the history books.
(As you know, he's barely mentioned in any history book, among all the tumult and agitation of the time.)

I believe I answered this already, and refuse to be baited further.

You miss the main point: Why all the blood? Isn't it awfully literalist and concrete to think the Savior must lose _quarts_ of blood to atone. Why not, one drop! Indeed, why not have the savior sacrifice one (real) lamb? (That would be symbolic.)

This all started back in the Garden of Eden in Genisis. God told Adam that if he ate the fruit from the "Tree of knowledge of good, and evil," that he would die. Adam, and Eve did eat the fruit against God's wishes, and therefore commited the first sin by disobeying God's will. In trying to hide their sin, not their bodies, they put on fig leaves. But God pointed out to them that all sin is punishable by death. That blood has to be shed for sin to be forgiven, and forgotten by God. And so God himself slew, and skinned several animals for Adam, and Eve to wear to cover their sins before ousting them from the Garden of Eden. This is where the blood of innocents ritual began. As English Lady explained that later the blood of a goat was sacrificed for Abraham's son. So that it would be understood that one innocent life's blood had to be spilled for to cover the sins of one man. Then later as we learn from Moses during the Passover ceremony, just before God gave man his ten sacred commandments, one innocent lamb's blood could cover the sins of a whole household. Then later one lamb's innocent blood could be shed for the sins of a whole nation. The point here being that unless innocent blood was shed, God could not forgive, nor forget the sin's of man because it was uncovered, and in plan sight to him. In fact the entire Old Testement points to the true Messhia Jesus Christ's coming to deal with all sin by shedding his life's blood for all mankind's sins.

Indeed, crucifixion need involve only minimal blood. You suffocate because you're hanging by the arms.

You are absolutely correct here. The men who scurged Jesus were sadists, the worst sort of people on the planet at that time. And yet Jesus forgave them as well so that all would know that there is no sin that cannot be forgiven, and forgotten by the blood of Christ's sacrifice. The violence that takes place in Jesus's last 12 hours is really no more than what somebody saying: "God Damn It!" really deserves for their sins in God's eyes. But God is merciful, and he gave his only son that others might live.

And by the way, please explain why any one person's being punished [for sin he didn't have] can take away the need (assuming there is one) for punishing others for their actual sins, i.e., vicarious atonement?

If your kids go and vandalize their school, can you take away their guilt by going to the principal and having him beat _you_; or by going to jail on their behalf?

I know you can pay off the damages, but surely that doesn't take away the guilt, only the financial consequences.

As I said above, the consequences of sinning against God's Laws is death. All mankind is born in, and from the flesh of Adam and Eve here on earth, and have inherited their sin from birth. If you don't believe that then watch a child openly disobey their parents, and you'll understand what I'm talking about here. Ask the child why he disobeyed, and they'll say; "I don't know." As for Guilt, only each of us can award ourselves any measure of guilt that we know we rightfully deserve punishment for. But if I may for a moment I'd like you to consider this. You're preoccupied say leaving work, or someplace else in town, or a big city, and you step out into the street without checking for traffic. Suddenly someone, a total stranger to you rams into you from behind, and pushes you out of the way of a speeding car, or truck. The person who saved you is killed instantly, their body mangled, laying bleeding on the street near you. You on the other hand don't even have a scratch, or so much as a bruise to show for the incident. (This is basically what Christ did for you, me, and everybody who ever lived, or will live by sacrificing his life for our sins on that cross.) You thank the very air around you that you are still alive. The guilt only comes later after you realize that this total stranger to you, saved you from your own stupid actions, and you find that they had a large family to support, a loving wife, and wonderful children. Nobody puts guilt upon us, we do that all on our own.

PS. There is also a term for those who believe everything they hear or read: 'credulous'. Just kidding DM. I'm sure you're a person of faith; you needn't question others' faith, just because they don't buy your dogma.

I don't remember selling any dogma here on the board. I only presented intelligent answers to questions steeped in subtle persecution of my, and any other Christian's faith in God. Faith is a singularly personal thing. Each of us has to make our own choices, and we all do. I could no sooner change any one person's faith, than I could live their life for them. Though many have tried to change mine, and not just a few atheists here either. It is just as easy for an ignorant person not to know of, or believe in the Atom, as it is for an atheist to not know of, or believe in his own creator. Even when the proof of both surrounds us all around, and is even a part of us. And my grandpappy always said: "Son, don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see, and you'll turn out alright."

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man