While we are discussing all the latest headlines,how about Passion of Christ ?

I'm looking forward to it but tickets are hard to come by unless one is willing to wait out the long line all day.

Haven't seen it, and probably won't, even when it comes out on DVD.

Most of the controversy seems to revolve around:

a) the violence in the film
b) the historical accuracy of the film
c) the potential anti-Semitism in the film.

In answer;

a) Mel Gibson said, very explicitly, many times, that it was going to be a very graphically violent film. So why would those who are going to be upset by that, have any grounds to be offended? Why didn't they just avoid watching it??!!

b) His interpretation. Again, pre-stated, many times, quite clearly.

c) Here we go. I'm part Jewish, and I couldn't give a toss whether a film is considered anti-Semitic or not. Or anti-white, or anti-black, or anti-gay, or anti-disabled, or anti-Christian, or anti-soccer, or antidisestablimentarian, or anti-any other damn thing. It's only a film, for God's sake.
Can we all build a bridge and get over this infantile PC garbage?
:rolleyes:

Nani, go to the first showing of the movie on Sunday. I don’t care how popular any movie is, the first showing on Sunday is never full.

Me, about this movie? I’ll watch it when it comes out on cable. I will not pay a cent to watch it otherwise.

BlueWolf,

I know there are some movie which are far more graphically violent and bloody. I'm wondering if the movie critics aren't somehow influenced by their own religious upbringings?

Can't say much about the historical accuracy though,I failed my Bible classes when I asked where the pictures were and the good nun gave me a rouged look across my cheek. She had one mean back hand on her.

But you're right,it's only a film but I still like to see what all these gushing emotions are all about.

Con-pilot,

Churches around here bought just about all the tickets including the matinees.
Good suggestions for other movies,thank you.

I'll just read the novel instead.

I read that a lot of the controversy was about the fact that the film portrays the Jews as killing Christ, thus portraying Jews in a bad light and therefore being anti-Jewish.
Assuming that the book is an accurate portrayal of history (not that I believe any of it), isn't that what actually happened? Are these people actually asking for a revisionist version of history? Surely to change that would be like changing the plot to "The Lord of the Rings".

What? You mean Mel hasn't blamed the Crucifixion on the British, then? :E

Don't know if I'll get to see it, but it's a brave move for anyone to so dramatically invest in one's own personal beliefs. Like him or loathe him, he's standing up for what he believes. Pity the pollies can't be so open.:(

As for his Dad.....:rolleyes:

'Scuse me if this is a stupid question ... but wasn't it the Romans who crucified him??? Had he been executed by the Jews, he would have been stoned to death according to their traditions and on their own authority. Roman intervention would have been neither welcome nor required ... and cucifixion was an exclusively Roman punishment.

As far as historical accuracy is concerned, there's little chance of that when the alleged event took place so long ago. And according to the gospels of Matthew, Luke and Mark, the crucifixion was witnessed "from afar off". Hardly a suitable situation for reliable eye-witness accounts.

Add to that the anomaly that the crucifixion is popularly said to have taken place on a barren hill called Golgotha yet the gospels identify the execution site as a garden with a nearby private tomb and already there is enough confusion to forestall any possibility of "historical accuracy."

Violent? Well, the process of execution by crucifixion could hardly be depicted with accuracy in any other way.

BD, you stole my thunder there with your comment about crucifixion being a violent method of execution. Critics over here who never raised an eyebrow at any of the Friday the 13th gore fests all-of-a-sudden find this film raises their ire because of the violence.

Bull$hit!

They also fear that the film could raise anti-semitic sentiments because a whole new generation of Christians can now accuse the Jews of deicide. It's been two thousand years, get over it fer Chrissake!

Just my 2 cents worth.

Wasn't it Caiphas, the leader of the Sanhedrin who demanded Jesus be punished for his blasphemes and alleged breaking of the laws of Moses? The Sanhedrin demanded that Pilate take the required action.

Pilate offered an amnesty for Jesus to the local populace, which was the tradition at passover. But the locals refused and instead Barabbas was released.

This is all according to the Gospels.

There is an interesting counter claim on this from scholars who say that the Gospels were written in a way that went as"easy" as possible on the Romans in order to further the spread of Christianity through the Roman Empire. It was easier to make the Jews the villians in the piece and try and reduce the role of the Romans in his death as much as possible.

These scholars make an interesting and strong claim that Jesus was also never born in Bethlehem or that Mary and Joseph never fled to Egypt. They claim these stories were invented as well as the immaculate conception in order to prove that in their eyes Jesus was the "Messiah" in accordance with the writings of the Old Testament, particulary the writings of the prophet Issiah.

According to these scholars Jesus was a political activist, born in Nazareth in a normal birth, and worked to undermine the Roman presence in the region.

Who to believe?

Just as religion is fiction, so is this film.

If any religion was real than GODland must be mighty crowded by now because there seem to be a lot of them about.

As for the outraged reaction from some parts of the jewish faith, how hippocritical of them when they daily lambast the muslims and palestinians.

It's a film........................big deal, not

I saw it and it is like nothing ever on film. People were weeping openly in the theater.

It follows scripture very closely IMO. The subject has been avoided from the pulpit for so long that Gibson did a service by presenting it as he did.

A Jewish group in NYC has brought a suit against it, saying it violated sections of The US PATRIOT ACT, and demanded that it be banned, and all reels of film be confiscated and destroyed.

OBERAMAGAU did a similar thing, but nothing to compare with this, due to being a live production.

Mary is played by a Jewess, BTW, and she is in hot water with her own people, apparently.

these stories were invented as well as the immaculate conception

If I'd been unmarried and pregnant in those days, I might have come up with a similar excuse. Much preferable to the alternative of being stoned to death.

All flippancy aside though I think what we have here is yet another example of the divisive nature of religion and the hippocracy of its followers. Instead of being a unifying force which promotes kindness and caring towards one's fellow humans, it seems to be the trigger for more antagonism and even hatred than any other cause in the area of human conflict.

This is what happened ... no it isn't

My God is better than yours ..... no he isn't

My religion is the only correct one ... no it isn't



and so on.

If these things did indeed happen and there was such a person as "Christ" who died in this dreadful manner in the belief that he was doing it for mankind then, from what I have heard, this film follows popular myth very closely and, this being the case, the "historical accuracy" is as good as it can be given the circumstances.

And, as surely not points out ... it's only a film.


The Sanhedrin demanded that Pilate take the required action.

This is another of those curious anomalies, OneWorld22. The Sanhedrin had enough of its own authority to pass a death sentence (stoning) and would never have sought the intervention of Rome in a "domestic" matter such as this. Also, crucifixion was a penalty for actions "against Rome" and calling a person "king of the Jews" would not fall under this classification. Now, if he'd gone around calling himself king of Rome .....

Anyway ... in every "account" we read of this legend, it is clearly the Romans who arrest the prisoner, conduct the trial and carry out the execution. For Jewish people to start crying anti-semitism is, in my opinion, a little far fetched. It is only a representation of a story that is printed in countless millions of books and has always been freely available for everyone to read for a long, long time.

Would they like the book banned as well?

If I'd been unmarried and pregnant in those days, I might have come up with a similar excuse. Much preferable to the alternative of being stoned to death

If you'd been pregnant back then BlueD, it might have been the least of your worries;)
Also, I've been stoned near to death before now, and it isn't so bad...:D :D

Crucifiction?
Yes.
Line on the left, one cross each.

Seriously though "Life of Brian" produced a storm of protest as well when it came out, anything to do with this story is bound to provoke a reacion and show the various religions up for the hypocrites they really are. LoB turned the hypocrisy into comedy and was a very clever and ironic view of the Jesus story as well as one of the funniest movies ever made. Mel's movie sounds rather more "arty" and tho I haven't seen it yet, I doubt the violence is any worse than many hollywood movies. The difference is that there is an element of truth in it.

Give it a few weeks and it'll all die down, but religious persecution in that part of the world will continue unabated.

Meanwhile Mel is guaranteed box office success. Good on 'im, even if he does seem to be a bit of a religious nutter himself.



Blessed are the cheesemakers.

It seems to be a rather unpleasant vehicle for promulgating Gibson's idiosyncratic and fundamentalist Catholic viewpoint.

Slanted and full of historical inaccuracies it focusses on the nasty details of crucifixion with the unhealthy obsession of a medieval visionary.

I can't quarrel with Gibson's right to make the movie, but I doubt that it will do much for ecumenism, Christianity or greater religious tolerance.

I'm no Christian or a member of any other religion for that matter but I don't see why Jewish groups would get upset or why Christians might become anti-semetic because of it. Look at it logically - there would be no Christianity without the resurrection and there would have been no resurrection without the crucifiction.

Therefore, whoever nailed Christ to the tree was responsible for spawning the Christian religion. If anything, Christians should be thanking Jews for killing the son of their God otherwise they would all be Jewish as well.

If only He had informed them that He had been told He could go free and live on an island somewhere... ;)

What is it about Smedley's last post that rings alarm bells in my memory? Hmm, I'm sure I must be imagining things...... :hmm:

And besides, if we're going to be historically pedantic, where does Wodewick fit into all this, and was he a nice Jewish boy?

where does Wodewick fit into all this

Wodewick was weleased, I believe.

Apparently they had no wodger, ( allegedly a wobber and a wacist) woderwick, nor weginald, nor wudolf the wed nosed weindeer.

Anyway what did people expect, historical inaccuracies are Mel's forte judging from some of his "historical" films since he became a reborn American. (Ironic that he was dubbed with an american accent for the first Mad Max) Stuff like Gallipoli, Year of Living Dangerously etc was very very good. IMHO He reached his peak at Mad Max 3 when he was still considered Australian. And a real spunk. :=

He must be rapt with all the publicity.

Amazingly, the self-appointed judges and jurists have ruled in a case going back 2,000 years. If only we could get them to re-examine some other more recent cases, like JFK or even Iraqi WMD. These should be child's play in comparison. And it's about time we brought to justice all those that declared the world was flat and probably delayed Columbus' discoveries by a few centuries... :\

Why does everyone care so much about what everyone else thinks about them? :confused:

What does the starling have to say about it all? Are we right to ignore them? :sad:

I am amazed that people think the Bible is an accurate historical reference point!

Like many 'historical' books it reflects the views of its writers with all their biases included. Unfortunately there don't seem to be any (?) balancing books from this era giving any other viewpoint.

I find it impossible to take these protest groups seriously as they tend to be so blinkered and closed minded.

and probably delayed Columbus' discoveries by a few centuries...

Wasn't America the discovery of Amerigo Vespuci??? It's not called "Columba" or anything is it?

;) :ok:

Interesting BD, you are right about crucifixion being punishment for crimes against Rome.

That makes the alternative view of Jesus being a political activist far more plausible. The revisionist scholars certainly concede that Jesus was a preacher with a different slant on Judaism to the traditional teachings. But really they say he was rallying against the pagan, vicious oppression of the Romans in palestine.

Hence the Romans decided to punish this dangerous and troublesome upstart who had gained quite a following. These "facts" were later ammended by the likes of St. Paul in order to underplay the role of the romans in his death. This was needed to allow this new branch of Judaism to flourish in the Roman Empire.

But yet again we ask, who to believe???

What is it that the Muslims say about Jesus again? That he was a prophet or something?

I got to see the movie yesterday. The theatre was sold out for every show...managed to buy a ticket off a tout.
I think Mel will easily make back his $25M.

It is a truly graphic and harrowing piece of work. A woman sitting next to me had her eyes covered for much of it. It is unrelenting in its violence and spares nothing in its portrayal.

The scourging scene is especially brutal, and the subsequent crucifixion is almost a relief afterward.

One thing about accuracy...I always understood that Jesus received 39 lashes. This scourging goes on, and on, and on.....
I did a quick bit of research and find that 39 was the limit under Jewish tradition, but there is nothing in the Gospels saying how severe Jesus' scourging was.
In The Passion He must receive over a hundred flesh ripping lashes.

When the final credits rolled and the cinema lights came up, I found my own body was aching, having been tensed from head to toe for the last hour.

So whats the verdict?

Firstly, on the anti semitic angle....I think anyone who is bothered to view this film is unlikely to have their world view altered by it to the extent they'll go out and blame jewish people for His death. There are of course nutcases everywhere and there is no legislating for them. The movie in itself did not (in my view) demonise jews...rather it damned the establishment of the day...both the Roman empire, and the clergy of the Sanhedrin.

For Christianity....I actually think it was a good thing it was made as graphic as it is. It certainly shook me into some realisation of the suffering of Christ. However, it also represents a study of mans inhumanity to man, and I couldn't stop thinking of the daily suffering and torture of ordinary people that still continues. Crucifixion was a common punishment in those days, so many other people went through the same kind of torture. I guess the fact of who He was and why it happened was the difference.

Perhaps the strongest 'subtext' of the movie is that of GREED and BETRAYAL, the banal power of EVIL and the weakness of Man.

The movie opens with the agony in the garden and Judas' betrayal of Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.

This mans greed, and his willingness to betray his friend for money was a powerful theme. Mel Gibson obviously wanted this element to stand out clearly. It struck a deep chord in me, and anyone who has ever experienced greed and betrayal (who hasn't these days, in this business) will recognise its ugly face.

Judas' subsequent realisation of what he has done, the hovering presence of a Satanic figure throughout, the demons of his conscience pursuing him...his suicide...powerful stuff indeed and a lesson to all those who put money before all else.

The movie is competently made, but not stunningly made. The cinematography is good, but not outstanding. It could have been better made as a movie. So it is no 'classic' of cinema.
It is what it is.

Go see it, but only if you have a strong enough stomach.
Keep an open mind.

Leave the kids at home.....

Looking at Gibsons movies it's no secret that he, although being a good housefather and father of 5 or 6 children, has an obsession for violence.

All he does is following the Holy Script, with an emphasize on violence.

I don't understand the aggravation of so many people and religion groups, after all everything is already known for 2000 years.

Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.
12When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. 13Then Pilate asked him, "Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?" 14But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge--to the great amazement of the governor.
15Now it was the governor's custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. 16At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. 17So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, "Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" 18For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him.
19While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him."
20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.
21"Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" asked the governor.
"Barabbas," they answered.
22"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
They all answered, "Crucify him!"
23"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"
24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"
25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"
26Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

The Soldiers Mock Jesus

27Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him. 28They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, 29and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and knelt in front of him and mocked him. "Hail, king of the Jews!" they said. 30They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. 31After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.

The Crucifixion

32As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross. 33They came to a place called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull). 34There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it. 35When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.[1] 36And sitting down, they kept watch over him there. 37Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Matthew 27

The more I read about this situation, the more I think it likely that, for whatever the reason, Rome has made every attempt to shift the blame.

Pilate, in this instance, portrayed as a reluctant participant, was a ruthless man who is unlikely to have bowed to the pressure of any mob. It is unthinkable that such a merciless dictator whould stand tamely in front of the people with whom he was essentially at war, throw up his hands and say, "Hey, this is all too hard ... you guys deal with it."

But if he had done that and if he had handed the prisoner over to the Jews ... then Jesus would have been executed by stoning and not by crucifixion.

The myth of the practice of releasing a prisoner appears to be just that ... a myth. Certainly no such policy was ever set in place by Pilate despite the fact that three of the gospels attribute it to him (Matthew, Luke, Mark). Interestingly, John, writing the fourth gospel indicates that Pilate himself attributes the practice to the Jews and says,

But ye have a custom, that I should release one to you at the Passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?"

So we have Jews saying it was a Roman practice, a Roman saying it was a Jewish practice and the reality is that it was never anybody's tradition at all. Certainly not Pilate's and definitely not a Jewish passover tradition.

I believe that it was the Romans who were responsible for the death of this person and that such accounts as may have been written close to the time it allegedly happened were subtly changed to indicate otherwise.

To rely on the bible as being some sort of historical document may be a little unwise. It is almost certain that such a person as Jesus actually existed but, at best, the rest may be little more than conjecture. The gospels were written during and after the revolt of 68 - 74 C.E. (A.D.) was over. Rome had just fought a long, bloody and expensive war against these people and Judaism had virtually ceased to exist as the well-organised socio-political force it used to be.

And who is it who writes the history books? The victor.

And if the history is not written by the victor then perhaps it is written carefully so as to avoid reawakening old conflicts.

Er, that's what I've been saying BD!!

Anyway, his Mum told me he's not the Messaih - he's a very naughty boy :p

I'm Brian...

By the way! What did the Romans ever do for us?

Excuse me, are you the Judean Peoples Front?

Are you the Judean People's Front?
Fcuk off!
What?
Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
W@<hidden>
Can I... join your group?

Anyway, his Mum told me he's not the Messaih - he's a very naughty boy That wasn't his Mum. It was a man dressed up as a woman and talking in a high-pitched voice. :ooh:

I thought this thread was going to be about me. :{

Acha cha cha cha, there now AerBabe, in a soothing, comforting tone... Some of us have been worried sick ever since Nani posted this topic, which is why lots of people who care about you here decided to respond to the topic in a serious manner in the hope that you wouldn't notice, what with everything else that has happened recently, so that the real reasons behind your disappointment and Mel's decision to make this film would remain a secret. Now that you've decided to come out, it's time everyone knows the great burden you have been under, so I shall try to relate the true story here:

Last summer, I literally stumbled across AerBabe (though I didn't realise it then), when meandering on the quay whilst waiting for a tender to take me to meet the Captain aboard a large charter yacht anchored out in the bay at Villefranche. Uttering an apology, this sublime example of womanhood (one couldn't help but notice), mumbled rapidly in reply something like "I'm er, babe but M'el does not know je suis ici". Thinking that this girl may be slightly inebriated, a not uncommon sight in the summertime here, but acknowledging that even after 11 years on the French Riviera, my French was still not upto scratch and not wishing to appear an imbecile, I simply said "it was entirely my fault, Mademoiselle, je vous en prie", before being rescued by the arrival of the Princess T****'s speedboat. It was only much later, when I was thinking about what a shame it was that I had not actually met Mel Gibson who had chartered the yacht, that I started putting the pieces together from what some of the crew had recounted and my own experience on the quay that sunny day. The crew had related that Mel had been one of the best charterers ever, treating everyone down to the lowliest rating with great respect and by all accounts living up to all that's best in an Aussie. Which is when I learned to my great surprise that he was one of the few Hollywood stars ever who had remained married to the same woman for over 20 years and was father to 7 children by the same mother. That was when my suspicions were aroused, surely this was too perfect to be true. That is why I can now confirm to everyone what should have been immediately apparent. Mel has been in love with AerBabe for a very long time. And it is only his very strong beliefs that have prevented consummation. It is his very denial of this love that has resulted in this film and all the controversy surrounding it. And therein lies the real question, should Mel have succombed to Aerbabe's charms, resulting in the usual Hollywood headlines but shielding us from the Passion of Christ?

Ironic that he was dubbed with an american accent for the first Mad Max I heard that it was because his Australian accent was so...Australian...as to be barely intelligible that they had to dub it to sell it oversease. (not meant to be rude) - btw, am I the only one to think there was a gay subtext to those films?

...Amerigo Vespuci... No. Lief Ericson about six hundred years earlier

But ye have a custom He was Scottish? :confused:

Posted by: OneWorld22

Wasn't it Caiphas, the leader of the Sanhedrin who demanded Jesus be punished for his blasphemes and alleged breaking of the laws of Moses? The Sanhedrin demanded that Pilate take the required action.

Another anti-Semitic hoax---the Jews were not in power at that time--the Romans were.

And the movie is in Aramaic--related to Syriac, which is spoken today, and Hebrew, and the language of the Talmud and many Jewish prayers. And not all the language was translated--Gibson left the most offensive language in, just didn't subtitle it: Here Matthew puts into the mouths of the crowd words that were to
condemn later generations of Jews: "And the people answered, `His blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25).

Posted by Smedley:
Mary is played by a Jewess, BTW, and she is in hot water with her own people, apparently
You must be confusing Jews with Muslims (see, eg, Salman Rushdie).

Some commentator wrote that the whole world should be thanking the Jews--if they hadn't rejected Jesus, Christianity wouldn't have been born, and although it has had a bloody history--we'd probably be far worse off today without it!

And if JC hadn't been crucified, but had been stoned to death instead, would the symbol of Christianity be a rock instead of a cross? Jesus ROCKS!

{"Who threw that rock??" "She did .... err... I mean HE did..")

Gibson's PR outfit must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Here Matthew puts into the mouths of the crowd words that were to condemn later generations of Jews Bubbette you seem to have more authentic information about what happen those days? If so, pls elaborate. I can't deny that this phrase is taken out of context by many in the following centuries. Yet nobody can denie the collaborating role of the pharisee's in those days and the fact that the Romans ruled Jerusalem through the High Priest, who was appointed by the Romans, and the Sanhedrin.

another anti-Semitic hoax---the Jews were not in power at that time--the Romans were. This would mean that for the same reason all the local Nazi-collaborators in WW2 are excused by you?

I'm not sure what you mean by that; I know for sure that at least one Jewish collaborator in Russia who was directly responsible for murders in the Jewish community during the times of the pogroms/czars was killed by Jews in self-defense. I am not that familiar with the Nazi stories, although I'm sure a similar justice would have been applied if possible. I'm not sure of the relevance of your analogy either. Are you saying the Romans were like the Nazis? I think that's a bit of a leap.

Airship - What on Earth have you been smoking? :confused:

Bubbette, the Romans were in power but the Jewish leaders still had control of religious matters.

Don;t get me wrong, I'm woth the Jewsih people on this matter. I think it's ridculous that passages in the bible have been used to stir up anti-semitism all these years.

I would also lay the blame for the death of Jesus squarely on the shoulders of the Romans. I think the "Gospels" were manipulated to reduce the responsibility of the Romans in this matter,

To all the knockers and doubters,

Do yourselves a favour and go and see this Great movie,better still read the New Testament:) .

It's very interesting seeing all these excuses and theories, just make sure you have your story straight on Judgement Day:ok: .

ps. it wasn't as voilent or as graphic as I had expected(moviewise) and I only wish it had gone a little bit longer and showed more of the Third Day.

If smugness isn't already a Cardinal Sin (and I'm NOT talking about the Archbishop of Manila here) then it's high time it was made one! :hmm:

I wonder whether One World can have forgotten that the early Christian church was actively persecuted by the Roman Empire? Hardly an inducement to co-operate in a pro-Roman spin exercise, I would have thought.

All pretty academic, anyway, since almost all modern-day English language versions of the Bible are based - to a greater or lesser extent - on the King James Version that was "brought on message" to reinforce the doctrine of Divine Right of Kings and to reflect a few of James 1's (James 6 of Scotland) more personal prejudices.

Funny bloke, was wee Jamie.............. :E

The whole goal Caslance was to spread Christianity THROUGH the Roman Empire. Hence the doctoring that went on in the gospels.

And look at the result, the eventual adoption of Christianity by Emperor Constantine.

What people don't realise is that Gibson has added to the Gospel stories with "visions" had by obscure Catholic mystics in the middle ages and beyond.

In the film, the high priests attend the crucifixion, that was never mentioned in the gospels and would have been forbidden under Jewish law. The handing to Mary of garments to mop up the blood of Jesus by Pilates wife is also never mentioned. The plucking of an eye by a Raven? Please!!

Gibson belongs to old school pre Vatican II Roman Catholicism. This film shows grotesque violence in order to bring back good old fashioned Catholic Guilt, i.e. look at all that suffering, he suffered because of mine and your sins etc etc. It's the old hell and fire sermonising that used to be prevalant in a country like this and is now thankfully gone.

Old style Catholic priests and reactionaries will love this film, I think the rest of us should look at it with a huge shovel of salt. Old style middle ages Catholicism based on the New Testament mixed in with "visions" given to shepards and schoolgirls and other crackpots through the ages? No thanks Mel, the world has grown up.

Oh they'll be dancing in the streets of Lourdes allright with this films release! Let the money roll in!

Sorry AerBabe, I got carried away, t'was the whiskay...:(

The whole goal Caslance was to spread Christianity THROUGH the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, OneWorld the early Christian Church was persecuted by the Roman Empire. This is a historical fact.

Constantine became Emperor in 306 AD, by which time the Christian mythos as we would recognise it today, complete with the crucifixion, - which, by the way, was the standard contemporary Roman punishment for insurrection and sedition - was already firmly established.

Once again, why would the early Christian church modify a central plank of their canon to paint their oppressors in a good light at the expense of another similarly-oppressed people? It makes no sense at all.

Cas,

I'm not saying they weren't perescuted! What I'm pointing out is what many scholars are saying, namely that the accounts according to the Gospels are innacurate from what we know. Namely the idea of a crucifixion occuring where the Romans role in this was greatly reduced and the real blame passed onto the Jewish people themselves.

These efforts of reducing the blame of the Romans in Jesus's death would have surely assisted in Christianity becomming accepted throughout the empire. I mean 200 years from being oppressed to the coronation of a christian Emperor is nothing in the scope of history.

Gibson has taken so many liberties with this film. i know he has a history or revisionism in his films, but this is more dangerous as it's to do with religion. And you and I know there are many nutcases in the US and elsewhere who will take this film as Gospel.

I mean turning Jewish children into Satan and have them harrass Judas till he commits suicide is just ridculous.

And have you seen Barrabbas?? You couldn't get a more offensive characature of a middle aged jew if you tried! It's as bad as the old Punch cartoons of the simian-Irish!

He's used too many crackpot old Catholic weirdo mystics from the middle ages and beyond to be taken seriously.

I am not exactly a fan of Mel Gibson's interpretations of history. His historical pornography that was Braveheart was so riddled with innacuracies that I found it very difficult to believe that Mr. Gibson had done much in the way of research. The revision and manipulation of history to make an hour and half of entertainment is never going to be true to the historical facts, especially if the writers, director and producers have a particular agenda.

Other films that fall into this category are The Patriot (another Gibson history porn movie), Amistad (historical facts changed to fit a particular agenda) U-571 (blatant re-writing of history for a US audience).

The Bible has been translated so many times and been subjected to so many writers with an agenda that it is difficult to regard it as a purely historical text. A good example of the changes over time are the name of Christ. His original name would have probably been Yeshua bar Josef (Joshua son of Joseph). When the name Yeshua was translated into Greek, the initial “Y” became an “I,” and the letter "S" was added to the end, because in Greek only feminine names end in a vowel — this gives us the name "Iesus." In the gothic script of the medieval period, the "I" became a "J," and the name became "Jesus." In combination with the Greek translation of the title “Messiah,” or “Christus,” this name takes on its best-known form: “Jesus Christ.”

Which brings us to the name Barrabus. Most people believe that Pontius Pilate asked the Hebrew people to choose freedom for either Jesus or a thief named Barabbas, the crowd chose the thief. But in fact, Barabbas may not have existed at all. "Barabbas" may have been a designation that was originally applied to Jesus himself.

This theory is supported by the fact that in some ancient copies of Matthew, the full name of the man whose release the Hebrew people called for is explicitly stated to have been "Jesus Barabbas."

"Bar Abbas" is actually an Aramaic term. It means "Son of the Father." Thus, it may well have been a sort of nickname for Jesus, who often referred to God as "father." But in Matthew, the name “Barabbas” is left untranslated, making it unintelligible to foreigners, and potentially creating the impression that Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Barabbas were two different people. Why? Because if "Jesus" and "Barabbas" were thought of as two different people, it would have explained a number of uncomfortable political realities.

If Pilate condemned Jesus, this would have implied Christians were enemies of Rome. Was there an explanation? Perhaps Pilate had arrested a rebel named Jesus, but this "rebel" was, coincidentally, another man named Jesus -- Jesus Barabbas.

Although Pilate had sentenced Jesus to crucifixion, as only he was legally empowered to do, it could now be explained that the Hebrew people, not Pilate, explicitly choose to free Barabbas and execute Jesus.

This would have cleared Jesus of the charge of sedition, and transfered all responsibility for the crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews -- a necessity in a Roman-dominated world.

Just a theory I read somewhere on the internet you understand... ;)

In the same way, Mel Gibson, or "Melvin Gibson" is a bastardisation of the ancient Australian dialect "Melvino", meaning "He who appropriates historical facts and dismembers them to suit his own narrow interpretation" and the Archaic American expression "Gibsononononon", meaning "producer/director/star of violent trashy movies" to produce a hybrid root name which actually means "Unhealthily preoccupied with overly simplistic historical epics designed to elevate a lone hero whilst simultaneously fomenting irrational hatred against a faceless but unfeasibly evil foe to provoke extreme emotional reactions within his key demographic, thus leading to unbelieveably high box office returns out of all proportion to the content and quality of the film".

Spooky huh?

PS. Thank you flypuupy, first words of sense so far......!

Don't bother to watch that thrash.I think hollywood has just invented a new kind of movies :Religious gore!

And,yes,I can well understand the dismay of the jewish population,and it's even more tragic because so much has been discovered by scholars ,researchers on the subject of the political/religious situation in Palestine during the first century.
All point towards an explosive mix of national resistance against the Roman occupiers and a desire to return to purer forms of religion which used the most violent pamphlets-and actions-against the then priesthood in Jerusalem.
It is now fact that these discoveries have been repressed-controlled-censored by the most zealous catholic so-called researchers led by Roland de Vaux,and without the activism of a few scholars (Eisenmann,Elaine Pagels come to my mind) the translations of the Dead sea scrolls -among others,including the Nag Hammadi gnostic gospels-would have been hidden forever.

The problem is that it is very difficult to argue with someone who takes the new Testament as truth,historical truth in spite of what has already been known for centuries :that none of the canonic gospels has been written by a Jesus'disciple,that the council of Nicae eliminated for political reasons a lot of other texts...including Barnabeus's and made them apocryphs (to be hidden from the public)...

As of the way the christian church evolved in its teachings,a good place to visit is the Pinacotheca in Sienna.They have one of the most impressive iconography of catholicism.The paintings are exhibited in chronological order...The most striking point of this museum comes from showing Jesus ,always in majesty up to the 12th century.From then on,the importance of the crucifixion takes over...and increases...ad nauseum.Do I have to suggest that this is the period when the Church became the most ruthless in its violence (the Albigean "crusade",the crusades and the Inquisition.....etc...)?
INCOMING!!!

Cas/OW22 et al,

The argument you two are having is moot since it assumes the death and resurrection of Jesus actually happened. There is more than one group of researchers who believe that Christ did not actually die on the cross.

The main gist of these theories are that Jesus was taken down before he died, nursed back to full health, appeared before the disciples and then left the Middle East and then travelled to France where he lived out the rest of his life in relative anonymity. There is a belief that he fathered at least 2 children. This is where things start to diverge dramatically. If you would like to know more then please feel free to PM me.

Cheers

BHR

BHR,
Apart from these modern speculations,it is quite interesting that the muslims,who regard Jesus as one of their most important prophets (His life constitutes as a matter of fact one of the main readings of the Ramaddan month,and his birth in particular is A LOT more marvellous than in the christian gospels),the muslims,then believe that the wrong man was executed.It appears the Romans arrested Barabbas in the confusion of the betrayal scene and crucified him!!!
But then,it could have been a political stand by the writers of the Quràn as they they refute ,among other things,the resurrection and the "Son Of God" dogma...

The argument you two are having is moot since it assumes the death and resurrection of Jesus actually happened. Actually, BHR it is whether or not you or I believe it really happened that is moot.

Since huge numbers of people throughout the last 1500 years or so of Western history have believed and do believe that it is true, the social and political impact of the story of the crucifixion and resurrection does not depend in any way on the historical accuracy of the story itself.

BHR, I'm not saying what did or didn't happen. I'm just pointing out what certain scholars have been saying which has only come out recently.

Who knows what to believe? There's been so much tampering and lost documents and "found" documaents and it was so long ago and has been interpreted so many times, who really knows?