Mel Gibsons (The Passion)

Since I didn't have to pay to see the movie, I feel vindicated. Well, maybe I should say I've been Vaticanated.

0 Replies

Lightwizard.
I hope your Vaticanated-sion was not against humor.

0 Replies

Do you know what is completely missing from the movie? Palestinians, that's what! Not one time in the entire move do you see one single Palestinian anywhere. Romans and Jews ... that's about it. No Palestinians.

And do you know why there are no Palestinians in the movie? Do you know why it's just Romans and Jews? Because that's pretty much all you had in those parts in those days. Romans and Jews. No Palestinians. The Palestinians came later. Much later.

0 Replies

I know what you're saying McGentrix. I couldn't help but notice that Jedis were also appropriately absent.

0 Replies

But the Jedi aren't trying to claim land in the middle east as being theirs...or have I missed a new Lucas movie?

0 Replies

Yeah, I find the fact that I have to call them "Palestinians" offensive. It's like insisting it's their land every time you mention them.

0 Replies

I've found the best way to remedy that is to think "poop" midway between the 2nd and 3rd syllables as you're saying the word.

0 Replies

Right. Can you translate for those of us with more than two functioning brain cells?

0 Replies

That word just makes me laugh, so I forget that I was offended.

0 Replies

Ah.

0 Replies

Um... some of ya'll need to look at a map or two. The action of Jesus' life took place in Judea, that's just south of Samaria and both of them were in Palestine. Saying that you don't see any Palestinians ignores completely the historical record and is akin to saying after watching a western "Well, I saw lots of Arizonians but no Americans."

Part of the fun of history is getting your mind around opposing images. The people living in Judea, Jews or not, were all Palestinians.

Joe

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Do you know what is completely missing from the movie? Palestinians, that's what! Not one time in the entire move do you see one single Palestinian anywhere. Romans and Jews ... that's about it. No Palestinians.

And do you know why there are no Palestinians in the movie? Do you know why it's just Romans and Jews? Because that's pretty much all you had in those parts in those days. Romans and Jews. No Palestinians. The Palestinians came later. Much later.

Actually, McG, all you saw were actors!

Some may indeed have been Jews -- but some may have been (probably were) Italian, Greek, or Palestinian actors. Those of us who have the Mediterranean littoral as our heritage all share common physical traits -- and it is often very difficult to tell one from the other.

And since the actors were simply playing parts of extras in a movie about that area, they were playing the parts of people who lived there at that time -- and it is likely that both Jews and non-Jews lived there - and made up the crowds.

One really cannot tell.

We see what we want to see.

0 Replies

The following are excerpts from two letters to the editor which ran side by side in the March 3 Orlando Sentinel, in response to a local columnist's take on the film (which one critic has dubbed the "Jesus Chainsaw Massacre"):

Quote:

The good Catholic focuses not on the life and teachings of Christ, but on his gory death, reflecting a selfish basic Christian conviction that what really matters is not his teachings but that he died for our salvation (from what and for what is never clear).

We build temples to our faith in everlasting life rather than trying to live on Earth by Christ's simple rules of justice and social harmony.

and:

Quote:

While the teachings of Jesus...are important, the primary purpose of Christ's life was not to establish deeds and teachings for us to follow.

Rather, his life was to be offered as the only perfect sacrifice to reconcile us to God. Down through the ages, there have been many individuals who have performed good deeds and set an example to follow. However, these pale in significance to what Jesus accomplished on the cross.

0 Replies

Thanks for that posting, Grayfan.

I think the first excerpt was exceptional.

As for the second letter -- well -- since there are people who constantly show up behind home plate or in the end zone of football fields holding signs to the TV cameras proclaiming "JOHN 3:16" -- I guess for some people the idea that there is a god so barbaric it has to have human sacrifices in order to be propitiated -- makes sense.

And I guess the idea of one man suffering crucifixion is a better deal for humanity than throwing lots of virgins into volcanoes.

Frankly, the notion disgusts me -- and as I mentioned earlier, I SUSPECT Jesus would have been mortified to find that his message of peace, love reconciliation takes second place to this "...he died for my sins..." thing.

But, everyone is entitled to his/her own sense of reality -- and I hope what I consider a vulgarity serves the purpose of making their lives more satisfying.

0 Replies

truth
I understand that on Jesus' cross was the sign, "He died for his guilt." That was probably posted on the crosses of all victims of Roman crucifiction. It was probably Paul who changed it to "He died for OUR sins." It was a manuver of marketing genius, the theological notion about cleansing our sins in his blood.

0 Replies

What a horrible quote. If Jesus hadn't intended his teachings to be important, then he wouldn't have taught them. And his resurrection is more important than his death... EVERYONE dies. And many have died for other people.

0 Replies

For all time since the caveman danced around a fire in fear of the moon we have to behave according to what ritual and tradition dictates. We've advance technologically in astounding leaps and bounds. Sociologically we are mostly stalemated in the far past, shackled with false notions about nature and mankind.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Um... some of ya'll need to look at a map or two. The action of Jesus' life took place in Judea, that's just south of Samaria and both of them were in Palestine. Saying that you don't see any Palestinians ignores completely the historical record and is akin to saying after watching a western "Well, I saw lots of Arizonians but no Americans."

Part of the fun of history is getting your mind around opposing images. The people living in Judea, Jews or not, were all Palestinians.

Joe

Not in the modern sense of the word, which was taken in political movement:

Pal·es·tine ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pl-stn) Often called "the Holy Land.".

A historical region of southwest Asia at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea and roughly coextensive with modern Israel and the West Bank. Occupied since prehistoric times, it has been ruled by Hebrews, Egyptians, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, and Turks. A British League of Nations mandate oversaw the affairs of the area from 1920 until 1948, when Israel declared itself a separate state and the West Bank territory was occupied by Jordan. The West Bank was subsequently annexed (1950) by Jordan and occupied (1967) by Israel. In 1988 the Palestine Liberation Organization under Yasir Arafat declared its intention of forming an Arab state of Palestine, probably including the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Arab sector of Jerusalem. The Palestinians achieved limited self-rule in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in 1993 and 1994.

I am talking about the people who took the land and call themselves palestinians, I guess that is the new Arab state of Palestine.

0 Replies

Posted a little history? under " who is this man " will not solve the questions in this thread, but explains a lot to me about "reasons why" in this film.
May do the same for others.

0 Replies

Perhaps they're thinking Philistines -- no that can't be. They're busy today making movies like this one.

0 Replies

Mel Gibsons (The Passion)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know