Posted on 06/23/2012 8:22:46 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Paul Verhoeven is known for such films as “Basic Instinct,” in which a character portrayed by actress Sharon Stone uncrosses her legs and shockingly reveals her female privates, and “Showgirls,” about a stripper who aspires to be a Vegas showgirl.
Given not only those films, but his entire body of work – “(e)xplicitly violent and/or sexual content ”are his trademarks, according to Wikipedia – there is hardly any filmmaker less worthy of making a picture about Jesus Christ.
But that’s precisely what Verhoeven intends to do.
In fact, the Hollywood trades reported this week that the Dutch filmmaker has managed to secure financial backing for his highly controversial project, and to find a scriptwriter to bring the gospel of Verhoeven to the screen.
Of course, there are some who would urge a reservation of judgment until the film actually makes it to theaters. But there is absolutely no reason to expect Verhoeven’s film to be anything other than offensive to true-believing Christians.
Not when his financial backer is Chris Hanley of Muse Productions, whose most noteworthy credit is “American Psycho,” a supposed “psychological thriller” about a serial killer.
Not when his scriptwriter is Roger Avary, who shared writing credits with Quentin Tarentino on “Pulp Fiction,” which featured a character played by actor Samuel L. Jackson, who sacriligiously quoted Scripture before shooting and killing his victims.
And, most importantly, not when the film is to be based on the book Verhoeven himself authored, almost mockingly titled “Jesus of Nazareth,” which challenges the veracity of the New Testament narratives of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke.
Verhoeven rejects fundamental Christian tenets: That Jesus is the Son of God. That He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. That he performed all manner of miracles. That He not only died on the cross, but also rose from the dead. That only through Christ are any of us saved.
The filmmaker not only believes that Jesus was mortal, but that He likely was the product of His mother Mary being raped by a Roman soldier. And Christ was no Messiah, Verhoeven is convinced, and surely had no idea He would be crucified.
In the filmmaker’s view, Jesus was little more than a political activist. “The Romans saw [Jesus] as an insurrectionist,” he explains. “what today is often called a terrorist.”
And forget about Heaven, said Verhoeven.
“For Jesus,” he maintains, “the Kingdom of Heaven was a very tangible thing. Something that was already present on Earth, in the same way that Che Guevara proclaimed Marxism as the advent of world change.”
Jesus the son of a rapist Roman soldier? Christ a former day terrorist? The Son of God the forerunner of Che Guevara?
That is the portrayal of Jesus of Nazareth that Verhoeven plans to bring to the big screen. The devil himself couldn’t do a more unholy job of revisionism.
This is probably more or less accurate. When reading the Gospels it is entirely apparent that the Romans had little patience for Jewish doctrinal disputes. All they wanted was for their subjects to remain quiet.
They were going to squash anybody who caused an uproar, with little distinction made between those who preached violence and those who did not.
It is also entirely relevant to point out there were a great many types running around who were definitely what we would today call terrorists.
The Monty Python movie "Life of Brian," oddly enough, is quite accurate in its portrayal of the multiple conflicting anti-Roman groups of the time. This undercurrent eventually became dominant and resulted in the great Jewish Revolt of 66.
Let us not forget his utter butchery of Starship Troopers.
Notice that there are no derogatory films about Mohammad by these “courageous” Leftist directors.
And one day, even this ungodly man will bow before the throne of Jesus, not out of reverence but out of fear.
Sure, they were Jews, and they were fighting against oppressive Romans. But the tactics many of them, though probably not all, chose to use included or were based on " use or threat of violence to inspire mass fear."
Those were exactly the methods they chose to use, against their own people often quite as much as against the Romans and other gentiles. Many of the sicarii had a great deal more in common with al Quaeda, and even more with the Assassins of the Middle Ages, than with the resistance forces of WWII.
Just because a group fights in what we believe to be a justified cause does not mean they can't use terrorist methods.
Of course, the Romans themselves specialized in "the use or threat of violence to inspire mass fear," and in the end turned out to be a good deal more effective at it than the Jewish terrorists.
Jesus was identified as a terrorist as we identify them today, by Roman intelligence and military authorities? How did we miss that?
There were no terrorists in the modern sense in the ancient world. Terrorists in the modern meaning of the term exist, and can only exist, in a symbiotic relationship with a free or semi-free press. Their actions are a kind of theater that require publicity to have the desired effect.
But there certainly were extremist Jews who waged war on the Romans, and especially on fellow Jews they saw as collaborators, using methods we would today call terroristic.
Barabbas, who the leaders of the Jews chose to have released so Jesus could be crucified, was one. Or it is at least likely the collaborating Jews and the Romans viewed him as one.
You didn’t answer my post 8 question at all, and terrorism has nothing to do with a free press.
I will be happy to answer your question if I understand what you are asking. Please rephrase and I’ll do my best.
Terrorism, in the modern sense of the word, does indeed depend on the press. It is a type of theater, by which others are encouraged to emulate their actions, to give in to the demands of the terrorists out of fear, or to force the government to over-react, become oppressive and alienate its own supporters. Every one of these goals is dependent on publicity, provided by the media. Without publicity any impact the terrorism might have would be limited to its actual physical effects, which compared to almost any actual war is minimal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed
This is, of course, just my opinion, and you have every right to disagree. Which is just your opinion.
Sure, I’m aware of the Jewish zealots, but were they associated with Jesus (who Verhoeven was saying would be considered a terrorist today)? From a historical perspective, I’ve always read that Jesus was executed because he claimed the title of “King of the Jews”, not for fomenting any violence.
I don’t see what is confusing about post 8.
Are you asking if the Romans thought Jesus to be what we today would consider a terrorist? IMO, no. Terrorists in the modern sense did not exist before the modern era. Again, IMO.
Are you asking if the Romans may have considered him one of those Jews who were troublemakers, some of whom used what we would today classify as terroristic methods? I think so. The Romans probably believed there was a need to kill a certain number of Jews over a period of time as a way to keep reminding them who was boss. They probably didn’t care all that much which particular Jews they killed, as seen by the Barabbas story.
Was Jesus a terrorist in any sense? Of course not, but Pilate’s questioning of him showed pretty clearly that the Romans were more than a little vague on just who he was. It was likely “All Jews looked the same” to the Romans.
In Acts 21 Paul is being questioned by an army commander: “
He replied, “Can you speak Greek? Are you not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a rebellion and led the four thousand assassins out into the wilderness?”
Which to me indicates the trouble Romans had telling the varieties of Jewish troublemakers apart.
You agreed with this statement.
“The Romans saw [Jesus] as an insurrectionist,” he explains. “what today is often called a terrorist.”
I asked you how the rest of us missed out on seeing what you see all these years.
Jesus was identified as a terrorist as we identify them today, by Roman intelligence and military authorities? How did we miss that?
Also terrorism does not need a free press to accomplish it’s goals, no one can keep secret an effective terrorist campaign.
Oh,yeah, Jesus was a terrorist alright. Teaching the gospel and preaching love and that the meek shall inherit the earth and throwing in some healings of sick people and raising one person from the dead. Very terroristic!/SAR
"Oops. I didnt' wish to imply that Christ could in any way be considered a 'terrorist' by any rational human being."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.