The Passion of Christ

[Morlock]

I know it hasn't come out yet, but never the less- thoughts? opinions?

[HighLordDave]

Just as The Last Temption of Christ (1998), it seems this movie has gotten people riled up who haven't seen it. People amaze me sometimes when they can come out passionately (no pun intended) against something like a movie without knowing firsthand anything about it.

Our church youth group is going to see The Passion of the Christ so I'll reserve comment on the content of the film until after I've seen it. I've heard lots of good things from people who have seen the movie, but I also believe this is because the screening audiences were "hand-picked" by the studio, so the chances of an infavourable review are low.

[Morlock]

I'm looking forward to it, but I don't know if it'll have an effect on me. Like The Last Temptation of Christ, it just has no relevence to my life, and is obviously not a movie that entertains.

[Twoback23]

yea its like straight from the bible, and some latin too, i heard that churches got to see it before it was released fully to the publique

[InfiniteNature]

I honestly couldn't give two diddlies about it, its just a movie. I mean by making such a fuss over it the Jews are virtually guaranteeing that more people will watch not less.

[Ned Flanders]

There is no such thing as bad publicity. I agree IN, it's just a movie.

[CM]

Its weird how things that may be consider to depict jews in a bad light is considered anti-semetic. That is what all the controversy is about and i honestly dont care. Its like me getting pissed off that Muslims were depicted as terrorists in true lies. Hello? Who cares its a movie.

Entertainment is entertainment.

[smass]

I would tend to agree with you CM - but with one caveat.

True Lies was purely a work of fantasy.

The Passion (while some may argue it is fantasy as well) is a movie about a historical event. You might feel a bit differenty towards a movie made about the crusades in which the muslims are depicted as evil.

Again - I think this is all much ado about nothing - but many Jews are paranoid - and who could blame them?

[Sojourner]

Quote:

Originally posted by CM Entertainment is entertainment.

But not necessarily entertaining.

Quote:

Originally posted by smass True Lies was purely a work of fantasy. The Passion (while some may argue it is fantasy as well) is a movie about a historical event. You might feel a bit differenty towards a movie made about the crusades in which the muslims are depicted as evil.

Hollywood and its ilk are the last people I'd expect any cultural/historical accuracy from. I don't understand what the fuss is about, unless someone is billing this as a documentary (good way to kill sales). Personally, I think this is another must-miss.

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner But not necessarily entertaining. Hollywood and its ilk are the last people I'd expect any cultural/historical accuracy from. I don't understand what the fuss is about, unless someone is billing this as a documentary (good way to kill sales). Personally, I think this is another must-miss.

I couldn't agree more. Hollywood has made lots of movies presumably depicting historical events, and many of those movies has been about more recent events that are much better documented than the happenings around Jesus life (if indeed he did exist). Hollywood freely use historical events in the same manner as the old chronicle tellers did during the Medieval times, ie to entertain the reader/viewer with a good story, to make funny or interesting points, and sometimes for political purposed to convey a certain image of an event.

A must-miss for sure! (good expression @Sojourner) If I was interested in a particular person's view of Jesus life, that person would certainly not be Mel Gibson

[Georgi]

Quote:

Originally posted by smass The Passion (while some may argue it is fantasy as well) is a movie about a historical event. You might feel a bit differenty towards a movie made about the crusades in which the muslims are depicted as evil.

But are the Jews depicted as evil in The Passion? I mean, maybe the movie implies that the crucifixion was their fault. That would not be the same as calling them evil. It is how that is interpreted by audiences (crucifying the son of God - automatically must be evil - discuss ), Christian, Jewish or otherwise, that brings that. You couldn't argue with a movie about the Crusades in which the Muslims were depicted as enemies of the English, would you? So why argue with a movie that depicted Jews as enemies of Jesus?

I seriously don't believe that Mel Gibson intended this movie to be anti-Semitic, it is just his view of what happened. As CE said, Mel Gibson's view isn't necessarily of interest to anyone.

Myself, I would be interested in the film only as a film, not any of the religious implications or whatever. As they say, the Bible's not a bad story.

Oh, I have also heard that the whole Latin/Aramaic thing is pretend history as well, and that there was no way Jesus would have spoken Aramaic...

[Gwalchmai]

Quote:

Originally posted by C Elegans A must-miss for sure! (good expression @Sojourner) If I was interested in a particular person's view of Jesus life, that person would certainly not be Mel Gibson

Maybe he'll make a sequel: "Jesus: Beyond Thunderdome!"

Quote:

Originally posted by Georgi Oh, I have also heard that the whole Latin/Aramaic thing is pretend history as well, and that there was no way Jesus would have spoken Aramaic...

I've heard that Jesus probably would have been able to speak Aramaic, but that Greek was the more common language of the masses (rather than Latin)....

[Georgi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Gwalchmai I've heard that Jesus probably would have been able to speak Aramaic, but that Greek was the more common language of the masses (rather than Latin)....

I was assuming that the Latin part would have been what the Romans were speaking, and that they had Jesus and the other commoners speaking Aramaic. *shrug* Anyway, it doesn't seem that they really did their research, does it?

[Morlock]

A few disorganized thoughts:

Entertainment as entertainment doesn't apply here. All reviews, positive or negative, have expressed that this is in no way the least bit entertaining in any sense what so ever. This is a movie made by and for devout Christians, and caters to the spiritual aspect.

I think whether or not the Jews killed Jesus is besides the point of everything. (the following may seem a bit contradictory, but it isn't)
First of all- (according to Christian teachings), Christ came to earth to die. He wanted to die. He asked to die. He prophosized his death. He died. Whoever killed him mearly did what needed to be done.
Second- history, not the Christian bible (which I do not count on for historical facts any more than I do on the Koran or my own Jewish bible) has recorded that Pontius Pilate was a violent, extremely strong willed leader, one that would not be manipulated by any one.
Third- I believe that the high priests of the temple did indeed want Christ dead. He was a radical who pulled himself and others away from the main stream, and he commited acts that according to Jewish law were deserving of death by stoning.

And since I don't take the Christian bible as anything more than a few members of a tiny religion writing down their ethos, and certainly not as the word of god, I'll also make the following observations.
The Christian bible was written by these guys at a time when the Roman empire existed. They were writing this book, and because they new that if the showed the Romans as bad guys, they'd be killed along with their followers. So they put the blame on the high priests. That is what I think is hugely misunderstood. I think all condemnation of Jews in the New Testament is aimed towards the high priests, not the Jewish people. They were a bit vague, but I think the line "His blood will be on us and our children" is not some vast saying, but a small one, meaning only the high priests themselves.

I am for this movie. I admire Gibson for making the movie, and hope this won't hurt his career, as he is a great filmmaker. I am against the comments made by Jewish leagues condemning this film.
But (to quote a Gibson film) 'Just because you're paranoid- doesn't mean they're not after you'. They are wrong here. And countless other places- but to simply brush aside any comments of anti semitism anywhere is one of the reasons it is thriving today like never before. I live in fear- not from the suicide bombers mind you, they only kill on average a dozen a week. But to see swastikas everywhere, and to see in the people in the Hague protesting not by saying The Wall is wrong or against human rights, but by saying Death to Israel, Death to Jews, and using quotes from Mein Kempf- that is not being paranoid.

[Chanak]

Greek was the more pervasive language in the East at that time rather than Latin, which predominated in the western portions of the Roman Empire. Many of the scholars who study this time period (at least in the volumes I have read that pertain to Christian writings circa 150 - 480) see Aramaic (also called Syriac if I am not mistaken?) showing up in some of the earliest documents, supposedly originating not too long after Christ's death. Apparently the Syriac language was spoken by the inhabitants of Galilee and the surrounding region during that slice of history. At least this is what is widely held by the scholarly eastablishment, often branded as heretics or worse by Christian fundamentalists. They support this theory based upon the predominant "Gentile" settlers of that area, as opposed to the more solidly Hebrew Judea.

@Morlock: I guess I see it a bit differently in regards to the treatment of Jews in the Christian NT. It seems to me that two very prominent sects of Jews - who historically were opposed to one another - were united in their resolve to rid themselves of the potentially damaging influence of a man whom the Pharisees (as well as most of the lawyers and scribes) saw as a charlatan, sorcerer, sinner, and blasphemer. After all, by his words and actions he was basically telling all who would hear that he was, in fact, God. He forgave sins, something that only God himself had the power to do under the Law. Just by the actions we see attributed to him recorded in the Christian Bible, he broke the Law in a public manner and encouraged others to do so by his example. I think the Saducees and Priests were concerned that his actions might foment a revolt, which in turn would attract unwanted attention from Rome. This is what I glean by perusing the often conflicting Gospels anyway.

Through a friend who was an avid student of early Christian literature and history in general at the beginning of the first century, I have had the opportunity to look over transliterations of certain Christian documents from the Greek to English, and Latin. Most of these were using the appendixes employed and accepted by biblical scholars for centuries...including the highly vaunted Latin Codex. Much of this is easily available to anyone who simply looks for it online...I do believe just about all of it is recorded in the Ethereal Library and is downloadable. In any case, I learned enough to seriously question the accuracy and integrity of just about all of the modern versions of the Christian canon that are packaged and sold as the Bible. Inaccuracies abound....one pertinent example: Matthew quotes a famous verse from the Jewish scriptures and claims that it says "a virgin shall conceive"...when the word in Hebrew means "young woman", nothing more...certainly not to be applied as a young woman who has never had sex before. That is a different word in Hebrew. Anyway, that particular prophecy was lifted out of time and space by the writer (or perhaps the translaters?) of Matthew, as it was fulfilled as a sign to a Hebrew King long before Christ was born.