baggio202 Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 what crimson said... howver, I listen to what you say to and I take that as a caution my distaste for this movie is that it is going to look to lot of people that this is what "Christians" believe and I resent heavily that the marketing within the churches and to the society at large is that this is representative of the Church which is my life what crimson said works for me, and thank you crimson but I understand your post is well intentioned and if that is the way it comes off to you than I need to consider that seriously so I thank you but as luck has it I am going to be gone for a while so you get a respite from my posts, Bob! one thing..i dont believe its fair of you to say you have problems with the scriptures being accurate and feel that because of the times the writers were infuenced to make rome look good and then say gibson made an anti semetic movie when he follows the scriptures.....its the writers of the scriptures where i believe your conflict lies when he follows the scriptures in your opinion he is being anti-semetic...when he doesnt follow the scriptures and adds artistic licsence then you blast him for not follow the scriptures...either way he cant win with you...no matter what he did..he was doomed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 i read through all 4 gospels this morning from where judas deceives Jesus...if you look at gospels accounts as a script for this movie its pretty close to what the gospels say...if this movie is a direct account of this anna catherine's vision..then her vision seem pretty close to gospel accounts..regaurdless of how anti-semetic she was or was portrayed to be... mel imo, stayed pretty close to the accounts of those finals hours found in the gospels... But, the internal contradictions between just the Gospels alone is enough to tell us that we are not reading historical documents. Rather, we are reading the culmination of four different recountings passed among the early Christians as oral tradition for 30-40 years before they were put to text by the Gospel writers. As such, it is understandable and even expected that details differ, sometimes to a great degree, because of oral embellishments and mis-transmissions over the years. Just consider the seemingly simple and presumably important accounts of the resurrection in the Gospels. They do not even agree on the who, how, or when concerning the discoveries of the resurrection. - John has Mary Magdalene first discovering an anger-flanked resurrected Jesus in the tomb, has her going to tell the apostles who were hiding behind closed doors, and then has Jesus appearing there to them all. - Mark puts Mary Magdalene, Mary Mother of James, and Salome on the scene, and they are told to tell the apostles that Jesus will see them when they get to Galilee. - For Luke, it’s the Two Marys, Joanna, and “the other women” who make the discovery and are told by a pair of dazzling angels to go tell the others. I couldn’t find Luke mentioning Judas’ suicide in his Gospel, but he does mention it in Acts. But, he has Judas dying by spilling his guts on the field he bought with his blood money, very different from the better known hanging version. -Matthew credits just the two Marys with the discovery, relates that it is an andel that tells them to deliver the news to the others to find Jesus in Galilee, and the Jesus appears to them while they are on their way from the tomb. Matthew also happens to mention that many other dead people rose up at the time of Jesus resurrection, which seems an event striking enough to warrant inclusion in the other accounts. None of this is meant to denigrate the Gospel accounts, just to demonstrate that they differ quite a bit on many details. It is an interesting irony that we refer to irrefutable matters as ‘the Gospel truth,’ when in fact the Gospels themselves don’t recount identical events. If detectives took four people into separate interrogation rooms and they each came up with such differing versions of the way things happened, the veracity of all accounts would certainly be questioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 baggio, one of the few timesa I will say that you are flat out wrong map out the 4 Gospel's passion scenes anfd lay out that unfolding script and that movie script is not Biblically based - so many additions, so many changes - and as for the historical reality, FlaSoxxJim has said it, I have posyed on it before - that mvoie twists the historical realiity - the line about Caiphas' having a rebeliion is utter bulls*** falsehood - what was the movie's motivation for killing Jesus - Baggio, you brought your piety into the movie and saw it with those lens - I was genuinely prepared to revise my pre-seeing opinion as I have done many times with movies - show me Jesus killing in the Bible show me where any of those lines are in the Bible close to the Bible? That is pure bulls*** that Pilate's wife comforted Mary throwing Jesus off a bridge - scene after scene has material not in the Scripture that whipping scene - the Bible is specific - the soldiers are even counting in the movie in latin (albeit they spoke Greek) and then keep on going and why, other to show the goodly Roman wife comforting mary whiel the Jewsih leaders delighted in the whipping - why put Jews in a scene where they do not belong, is that in your Bible, read it again, add the Pilate's wife thing, add the Jewish leasders getting off on the whipping - here's a fact, they wuld have been now here near there and it all keeps pointing fingers at the Jewish leaders and it just is not so and on and on and on and on and on when you and I watch a football or baseball game I will bet you any money that you see more technique and subtle things about the game that I will never will because you know more about that sort of thing - that is what I am saying - from an academic, schlarly perspective this movie is porno violent antiSemitic trash King of Kings,m Jesus of Nazareth, any of those movies were far, far closer to the Gospels than this thing Last Temptation of Christ takes speculation and makes something meaningful - this is just Mad Max/Braveheart obsession with males being tortured and it is sick man..i dont know what i just did but i answered as many as i could and was almost done and then hit soemthing on keyboard and lost all the info :headshake sorry..have to try later when my head clears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 man..i dont know what i just did but i answered as many as i could and was almost done and then hit soemthing on keyboard and lost all the info :headshake sorry..have to try later when my head clears That really pisses me off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 When I said irrational, I didn't mean a raving lunatic or anything. My point is that CW has come out so strongly against this movie that I feel I must take everything he posts on it with a grain of salt. I think it is the same way when someone like Teddy Kennedy comes out with another attack on Bush, or if Limbaugh were to attack Clinton. You don't quite trust what they say because they are sooooo against the subject. While I don't believe that CW is lying, I feel he is slanted against the movie if for no other reason than he has been railing against this movie for so long and so vehemently and for so many reasons, many of them minor according to those who have seen it. I hate Keith Foulke. If I post every day about how he couldn't get me out in the bottom of the ninth, soon you will dismiss my points on Foulke, no matter how valid, because you know I hate him. That's what I was getting at. No offense was intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 All I will say is that it is a good movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmarte Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I saw the movie this morning. I came away with several questions in my mind about what was scriptural and what was not (I am NOT a biblical scholar). I spent the afternoon taking turns with my wife reading the four gospels out loud, the parts that are covered in the movie anyway. I found scriptural basis for most of the things I had questions about. There are definetly things that are added and exaggerated. I won't bore anybody listing all the little things like Peter not actually hearing the cock crow in the movie. I think there are three major discrpancies in the movie from what I see. First, the movie overplays the amount to which Pilot agonizes over Jesus' fate and flat out makes up much of the material that involves his wife. Second, the amount of time spent focused on the scourging in the movie is out of whack with the scriptures in my opinion. Thirdly, the destruction of the temple rather than just the tearing of the curtain at the end is just plain wrong. I don't think this is a great movie, 3 out of five stars if I had to say. I personally think the movie has the wrong focus and would have liked to have seen a little more time spent on explaining why the Jews and the Romans wanted him put to death in the first place. More than five seconds on the ressurection and it's implicatins would have been nice too. I don't think the move was anti-semetic though. Jews and Romans were portrayed as responsible to an equal extent (at least, the Roman soldiers were down right sadistic in places). It seems clear to me from the scriptures that both the Romans and the Jews were motivated in their actions only by selfishness -- extreme CYA if you will. Spending too much time deciding whether the Romans or the Jews were responsible for Jesus' Crucifixion is ignoring the whole point anyway. I think the bottom line is this; you are going to come out of this move with an amplified version of what you went in with. If you go in with the attitude expecting to watch a mysterious figure go through the signs of the cross, you'll get it. If you expect to get a better understanding of what your personal savior did for you, you will get it. If you go in with an analytical mind, you will come away with more questions. If you come in a chip on your sholder you will very likely come away feeling as if someone has tried to knock it off. As we all know anything times zero is zero. My suspicion is that a non-christian with nothing invested in the movie will come away with nothing. I think that is sad. Overall I'd say don't believe the hype, not one way or the other. This is just a movie. Not a bad one, not a good one. Just... a movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I got terrible news this morning. My awesome grandmother Ksenya's heart stopped on Wed, the day of this movie's release. She was 98. Maybe she knew something. I am not going to see it. I am done. sorry to hear about your grandma brando...you and your family will be in my prayers..god bless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 29, 2004 Author Share Posted February 29, 2004 he has been railing against this movie for so long and so vehemently and for so many reasons, many of them minor according to those who have seen it the reasons are not minor to others who have seen it I see where you are coming from for the rest and I am taking your comments as pleasant natural exchanges amongst friends actually many times I have expected to hate a movie that I ended up loving - my friends love the 180s I can pull on a film - Star Wars most obvious example ("it glorifies warfare, makes a cartoon of war, yada yada yade" turned into seeing it four straight weekends and thinking it one of the best movies ever made) but there are many others, many of them in my dvd/video collection, which includs a movie I expected to love and did, Breaker Morant with Mel Gibson I decided to go, ok, I'll give it a shot - when I went to get the advance ticket, there were 4 left, I bought 1 - by sheer coincidence my pastor friend got there right afterwards and 2 of the 3 remaining for he and his wife when I got in line and ran into my friend, we decided to hope that it was better than we were expecting based on the script it was worse than I expected and worse in ways that grieve me theologically imagine a Reagan movie that opens with Nancy in 1981 getting an abortion as Ronald beamed about it - the act of Jesus stomping a living thing to death is so antithetical to the Gospel and all that Jesus taught and did - with the Reagan movie I am conjecturing for an analogy, you'd expect it to go downhill from that supposed opening - this one did for me and believe it or not, as I stood in line, I had hopes that once again I'd pull a 180 and this one took me a full 360. right back to where I started Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I got terrible news this morning. My awesome grandmother Ksenya's heart stopped on Wed, the day of this movie's release. She was 98. Maybe she knew something. I am not going to see it. I am done. My condolences. G-d bless her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I missed the reference to Jesus stomping a living thing into the ground. What's that about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmarte Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I missed the reference to Jesus stomping a living thing into the ground. What's that about? In the beginning of the movie it showed Jesus praying, knowing what he was going to have to go through, that he wouldn't have to bear the burden. The movie showed satan planting thoughts of doubt in Jesus' mind. A serpent then came from satan's body toward Jesus. Jesus stood up as he finished praying and crushed the head of the serpent. As I said on the other thread, it seemed pretty clear in the context of the movie that it was symbolism for Jesus crusing the doubts planted by satan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 In the beginning of the movie it showed Jesus praying, knowing what he was going to have to go through, that he wouldn't have to bear the burden. The movie showed satan planting thoughts of doubt in Jesus' mind. A serpent then came from satan's body toward Jesus. Jesus stood up as he finished praying and crushed the head of the serpent. As I said on the other thread, it seemed pretty clear in the context of the movie that it was symbolism for Jesus crusing the doubts planted by satan. It was the fulfillment of the prophecy from the casting out of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 according to the passages and footnotes in my bible (niv) gen 3:14 - 15....so the Lord God said to the serpent , "because you have done this," "and I will put enmity between you and the woman, annd between your offspring and hers he will crush your head and you will strike his heel footnotes: the phrase "you will strike his heel" refers to satans repeated attempts to defeat Christ during His life on earth.."he will crush your head" foreshadows satans defeat when Christ rose from the dead...a strike on the heel is not deadly...but a blow to the head is..God was already revealing his plan to defeat satan and offer salvation to the world through His Son , Christ..... nice catch southsider 2k4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 It was the fulfillment of the prophecy from the casting out of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3... "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 the phrase "you will strike his heel" refers to satans repeated attempts to defeat Christ during His life on earth.. That's pretty slick. I never really thought of that before. Good Catch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 29, 2004 Author Share Posted February 29, 2004 those interpretations of the Genesis passage are in my opinion not supportable, quite fanciful. The statement is made as an etylogical statement as to why the snake has no legs and the usual human dislike of snakes and that some snacks are venenous and dangerous. To say that somehow this refers to Christ is far, far, far fetched and not supported by context. As for Jesus - Jesus the one who said resust not evil, who in the tempation natrratives sends the devil away with a word, this cinema action violates all that the Gospels say and witness to of Jesus. Reaching for such which if the Genesis text were about Christ why wouldn't the Gospels have Jesus do it? Is Mel improving on the Gospels? Be careful in answering that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 That's pretty slick. I never really thought of that before. Good Catch. Sorry guys, I can't take any credit. Today's sermon was on connecting the Passion to the beginning. It was a great sermon, and I will post a link for all who are interested when it is on the church's site mon or tue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 Sorry guys, I can't take any credit. Today's sermon was on connecting the Passion to the beginning. It was a great sermon, and I will post a link for all who are interested when it is on the church's site mon or tue. out of my deep, deep respect for you and our friendship I shall not comment on a sermon that is based on a movie script for the proclaimed Word of God of the day. The passion stories in the 4 Gospels (which don't have the Gibson added touch) are the material I would preach from and will do as we get to Holy Week. Today's Gospel lesson was the Luke narrative encounter of Jesus and the devil and failed to include the Gibson touch. I find it sufficient to preach on the Bible as my text for things about Jesus. To preach on a movie script as filfillment of Scripture - that says much to me about what is wrong with preaching today among other things but I shall pass on sayng more out of, again, respect and friendship and may I say love, I shall leave it alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 out of my deep, deep respect for you and our friendship I shall not comment on a sermon that is based on a movie script for the proclaimed Word of God of the day. The passion stories in the 4 Gospels (which don't have the Gibson added touch) are the material I would preach from and will do as we get to Holy Week. Today's Gospel lesson was the Luke narrative encounter of Jesus and the devil and failed to include the Gibson touch. I find it sufficient to preach on the Bible as my text for things about Jesus. To preach on a movie script as filfillment of Scripture - that says much to me about what is wrong with preaching today among other things but I shall pass on sayng more out of, again, respect and friendship and may I say love, I shall leave it alone. Not the movie per se. Maybe I didn't word that too well... You'll understand better when they get the sermon on line, I will post a link to it. Now don't get me wrong, there are things about this church (they are a pray this prayer church ) that bother me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 those interpretations of the Genesis passage are in my opinion not supportable, quite fanciful. But of course... :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 As we all know anything times zero is zero. My suspicion is that a non-christian with nothing invested in the movie will come away with nothing. I think that is sad. Wait, you think it's sad that people such as myself, who don't believe in anything "Jesus," would come away from this movie with nothing? Well, in our opinion, there's nothing to take from it, because it's a FICTIONAL re-telling of a FICTIONAL story. I think it's sad that one can't rise above their own fear of what is unknown, so they stubbornly adhere to a multi-thousand year old book, 1% of which is corroborated by other sources-- a book in which the events of its focal point aren't even kept consistent. I also think it's sad that said people really believe that we humans, who occupy about one one hundred-trillionth of the KNOWN universe are really that important to the creator of aforementioned universe. See, we atheists can be just as arrogant and condescending as christians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 BTW for all who are interested. The movie made an estimated $117.5 during the 5 days it has been open, including $76.5 million over Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Not the movie per se. Maybe I didn't word that too well... You'll understand better when they get the sermon on line, I will post a link to it. Now don't get me wrong, there are things about this church (they are a pray this prayer church ) that bother me. Here is the link http://www.lbchurch.org/UserArea/StaticPages/Sermon.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmarte Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Wait, you think it's sad that people such as myself, who don't believe in anything "Jesus," would come away from this movie with nothing? Well, in our opinion, there's nothing to take from it, because it's a FICTIONAL re-telling of a FICTIONAL story. I think it's sad that one can't rise above their own fear of what is unknown, so they stubbornly adhere to a multi-thousand year old book, 1% of which is corroborated by other sources-- a book in which the events of its focal point aren't even kept consistent. I also think it's sad that said people really believe that we humans, who occupy about one one hundred-trillionth of the KNOWN universe are really that important to the creator of aforementioned universe. See, we atheists can be just as arrogant and condescending as christians. It wasn't meant as a criticism of people watching the movie, it was meant as a criticism of the movie itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.