Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

Maliagar could get away with some of this if it were divided a week apart in a Sunday sermon. I don't believe a lay person without credentials can explain what the Catholic church, the Pope or any high official of the church would want to see in print. This is not to the point of this forum -- the film is either successful as cinema or it's not. "Braveheart" had some glaring inconsistencies (if lying about history can be called inconsistencies) and I expect that Gibson has indulged in his artistic license on this film. There should be a lot of artistic licenses revoked in Hollywood, especially with Biblical films. As far as Christ existing, a crux of this discussion, there is some evidence but not as conclusive as the historical evidence that Julius Caesar existed. Many will quote that Christ is mentioned in the Koran thus making that a corroborating document. Moses unlikely existed at all, a concoction of several sages from the times (very likely personalities that existed a hundred or more years apart). That calls into question most of the Old Testament which, to be fair, not just the Catholics are still glued to. Jesus was put to death for advocating that the status quo of the worshippers of that time were way off course. The rabiis believed he was a revolutionary that was dangerous to their position, especially with the Romans. His words are not being followed today any better than they were followed then. Judas isn't the only betrayer of Christ -- the betrayers are all within the churches and they like to point fingers at those who don't subscribe to the dictates of the modern church. Maliagar's sly little slam on the Protestants just shows how divided Christianity is over almost all subjects of humanity.

M, I think you're making a heck of a lot more sense than people are giving you credit for. Their bias is evident.

This has all made for very interesting reading. But, isn't this forum supposed to be about Mel Gibson's "The Passion"? Sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to break the chain a bit before we start/continue insulting one another for the religious/non-religious beliefs that have been shared.

That having been said, Mel Gibson should be commended for having the courage to make a movie like this. It's certainly about time and serves a purpose in these times.

So you say.



So you say. I don't recall our discussing modern biblical exegesis, but never mind...



Correct on this one! One out of three guesses... not too impressive.



I don't remember posting my resume on this forum. Could you stick to the point we were discussing, instead of speculating about my credentials? I won't speculate about yours...

Thanks.

The courage to make a movie like this? It's about time? Because it seems to subscribe to the "show war as the Hell it really is" school of "Saving Private Ryan, it might end up where "The Agony and the Ecstasy" is niched into film history. Too much agony and not enough ecstasy. If Gibson is being magnanimous in preaching that he has created anything more that yet another film about the Crucifixion, I don't buy that. How much extrapolation would one expect in such a film if it truly goes beyond what has been filmed before and according to the Gospels? And, yes, I think as I've said before we should all stick to the film -- those who know me well know I do have the credentials to criticize films but I'm usually not so pointedly negative -- Mel Gibson is sometimes a good actor, sometimes not. He has been Hollywoodized so he seemed to at least have the Academy voters for him with "Braveheart," but as Paulene Kael had pointed out, they movies have been a pretty uneven quality since the end of the Seventies. "Braveheart" was entertaining but ultimately a pretentious, overwrought and self-gratifying glossy historical nonsense.

Thank you, Seb. In forums like this, sometimes one wonders... :wink:



There's really not much more to say, until we all see the movie. And my recommendation is: Forget the popcorn and the soda. Go prepared for a religious experience. Like I said, I saw a 4 minute clip, and was stunned. Then the Catholic TV station (EWTN) has shown 2-minute clips. For me, the best Jesus that I've seen so far is Franco Zefirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth". We'll see if Mel Gibson is really able to provide a classic account of the passion. I hope he does--for art sometimes has a way to touch people. (look for a story of the conversion of French poet Paul Claudel as a result of entering the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris)

Take care.

"Jesus of Nazareth" was unique but not a very good central and, of course, pivotal performance. It was, incidentally, mostly scripted by a gay author, Anthony Burgess, who also wrote "A Clockwork Orange."
If you're Catholic, that might lose some points.

Robert Powell, who played Jesus, became a Catholic as a result of his experience doing this movie. Point for the Church!

He was Captain Walker in "Tommy" before "Jesus of Nazareth" and had admitted being hooked on drugs and living a rather decadant life style. He did join the Catholic church, later winning an award at the Venice Film Festival for "Imperativ," which the Vatican would not be overjoyed considering the sexual content and in 1984 he was in yet another remake of "Frankenstein," as Dr. Frankenstein and that about put the last nail in the coffin of his career. He's been used as a narrator for his rather distinctive voice. There's nothing regarding whether he actually stuck with the church.

Maliagar said... Recollection isn't the impediment here. Your knowledge of early Christian thought (and history) is shallow and your sources evident. I suspect you've enjoyed some success at bluffing your way through in the past, but how uninteresting that is. You made a claim earlier regarding passages to be found in the work of two classical writers but you weren't forthcoming with the precise passages when asked for them. Your response I've quoted above reveals that you are quite unaware of the academic work that has been, and is being done in the field in which you have been suggesting you are something of an authority (a couple of days previous, I linked the following piece in a quite separate context, but you should read it... http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pagels03/pagels_index.html )

Now, as to why I'm directing my comments at you. A number of your previous posts are pompous, self-aggrandizing, and display the sort of self-certainty that marks a lousy scholar...he already knows it all. Knock off the pontificating, and the personal hubris beneath it, and perhaps we can have some conversations of worth.

Blatham -- In another thread, Maliagar resorted to quotes from reviews in Amazon in support of his thesis about the Church. A modern approach. The net is reponsible for more than god these days...

I posted earlier ( a few days ago) that i was curious as to the intent of Maliagar in his initial and following posts with the purpose being that if I or we could discern his objective we might be able to further a dialogue, he/she made it quite clear to me that was of no interest..

Hey, Blatham...

Apparently, if it depended on you, I would go back to Kindergarten, eh? You seem to have very strict ideas about what argumentation and scholarship are. Thank God you were not one of my high school teachers!!!



Probably. But please, enlighten me. :wink:



Can you refresh my memory? These last few days I've been extremely popular around here, and have talked with too many people for me to remember every wise or silly comment I've made or heard.



Authority is a relative term, my dear. I'm certainly no authority vis-a-vis a Ratzinger, Rahner, or Von Balthasar. But vis-a-vis you and others around here, perhaps. You probably haven't read my other interventions at A2K where I acknowledge that I'm an amateur in these issues. Never mind: I'm already used to unfairness, sloppy judgment, and self-righteousness.

By the way, you seem to believe that you have said something really interesting around here... Whatever: the real test is not my diplomas or yours. The real test is your ability to say something interesting. And so far, you've only expressed an interest in unmasking me... That may be very interesting to you, but it is of no interest to me... :wink:



Refresh my memory, dear. And yes, perhaps (only perhaps) I'm a lousy scholar. But again, "lousy" can be a relative term. It all depends with whom are you comparing me with.



I not aware of any particular reason why you and I should have a conversation. I don't recall you saying anything of interest (but again, I've talked with too many people these last few days to remember). But I'm amused by the series of adjectives you have for me (I'm sure, with the best of intentions). So if you like, we can start our conversation by having you address more of those adjectives to me... and if I have some time, I'm sure I'll find some amusing response to you.

Take care.

Maliagar

Back but a single page...

"You mention some historical references (Tacitus and Flavius - you'll perhaps acknowledge that the 'gospels' kind of beg the question of historicity). To which exact passages do you refer?"

duplicate

duplicate

duplicate

LW, you have no idea how ridiculous you sound. You seem to redeem yourself by writing your "opinion" on a particular film or topic and then quickly revert to the childish, personal attacks against the church in the next. Who gives a damn that a homosexual had something to do with the movie? Do you honestly believe that makes a difference to the church's opinion about the film or to anyone even remotely intelligent? It's people like you that make it so difficult to have a normal discussion about a FILM. Why are you so filled with hatred against the church? Had something happened to you? You should consider growing up a bit - at least the way you express yourself. Here's a post that you still haven't responded to:

This quote from LW has got to be the best thing I could possibly have read to prove my point: "That the Catholic church came out against "The Last Temptation of Christ" now seems hypocritical considering the revelations in Boston of how many people were sexually abused. I suggest they clean up their own house before criticizing others for their religious statements. Martin Luther is still around to haunt them, or has everyone forgotten?)"

It's just amazing how people pick and choose what they like to hear and see. These comments about the movie aren't really guided towards Mel Gibson, are they? Of course not. Anyone who thinks so ought to have their heads examined and read the quote above. I actually commend LW for saying it and showing her true colors. The fact of the matter is, virtually all of the negativity towards the movie is meant to target the Catholic Church. Isn't it?

Those damned Catholics! Who cares that they do more good for the world than any other organized religion or group combined. Right? Let's do away with the Church all together! After all, there's a handful of priests who have molested children/parishioners. Therefore, the whole lot of them ought to be abolished! In the meantime, we'll just turn away from the acts of NAMBLA, hey - they're just homosexuals expressing themselves - they aren't hurting those 12 to 16 year old boys. While we're at it, let's go spit on Mother Teresa's grave - she was a Catholic - after all, she must have been evil as well. Oh, and while we're at it, let's get rid of the Red Cross - the single largest charitable organization that exists and who actually helps those who need it and actually gives away in services and the like 80 cents for every dollar it receives while other organizations average about 20 cents - hell, they're a Catholic organization - they must be up to no good!

Let's stop the bullsh-t and tell it like it is. You don't like the religion. Good for you - that's your right. If anyone has atoned for the sins of their past, however, it's the Catholic Church. I never heard a Rabbi apologize for his religion's past or their present epidemic of brothels being run and organized by orthodox and hasidic Rabbis. Have you? I bet you didn't even know that. From the sound of your comment, I bet your not much informed on these topics. But hey, this is a free country and no matter how infantile or unjustifiable a comment may be, a person does have a right to say it.

Seb -- Welcome... I guess! You have shown us what bullshit is.

off to have my head examined, bbl

Not to mention the thousands of children buggered senseless by Catholic priests and bishops?