Posted on 02/26/2004 8:32:25 AM PST by .cnI redruM
There is a remote possibility you may hear something about The Passion of the Christ over the next few days. Yours truly would like to add a small point about scripture and a large point about theology.
The small point is that Mel Gibson's movie depicts Jesus as horrifically brutalized before his crucifixion, and though it is possible events happened this way, according to scripture it is far from certain. All four Gospels report that Pilate ordered Jesus "flogged" or "scourged" before sending him to the cross. But that's all the Gospels say: There is no description in any of the four books regarding how bad the flogging might have been. Gibson's assumption that the flogging was sustained and horrific could be right, but then, a lot of guesses could be right; Gibson is presenting a guess. Mark and John say that Roman police hit Jesus with their hands and with "a reed;" Matthew and Luke say that Roman officers blindfolded Jesus, hit him, and then mocked him by taunting, "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?" That's it for the Gospel accounts of the torturing of Jesus. Moviegoers will be given the impression that in seeing Jesus horrifically beaten, they are finally beholding the awful, historical truth. They're not--they are beholding a moviemaker's guess.
The Gospels emphasize Christ's suffering on the cross; Gibson has decided to emphasize Christ's suffering via the whip. Strange that Gibson should feel he understands Jesus' final hours better than the Gospel writers did. Maybe this is simply his artistic interpretation--but remember, Gibson is presenting his movie as the long-suppressed truth, not as an artistic interpretation that may or may not be right.
Beneath all the God-talk by Gibson is a commercial enterprise. Gibson's film career has been anchored in glorification of violence (the Mad Max movies) and in preposterous overstatement of the actual occurrence of violence (the Lethal Weapon movies). Gibson knows the sad Hollywood lesson--for which audiences are ultimately to blame--that glorifying or exaggerating violence is a path to ticket sales. So Gibson decides to make a movie about Jesus, and what one thing differentiates his movie from the many previous films of the same story? Exaggerated glorification of violence.
Numerous other devout depictions of the Jesus story--including the 1979 movie simply called Jesus, which, as recently reported by Easterblogg's colleague Franklin Foer, numbers among the most-watched films of all time owing to its showing in churches--downplay the flogging of Jesus and focus instead on his suffering on the cross. That is to say, numerous other devout depictions of the Jesus story take the same approach as taken by the four Gospel writers. Gibson instead decided to emphasize and glorify the story's violence. Hollywood has indoctrinated audiences to expect to see violence glorified and exaggerated: Gibson now gives audiences a Jesus story in which the violence, not the spiritual message, is the centerpiece. This is a deeply cynical exercise, and one that results in money in Gibson's pocket.
Now the large point about theology. Much of the discussion over The Passion of the Christ focuses on whether it is fair to present the Jewish people or Jewish leaders of the time as the agent of Christ's death. This debate is hardly new, of course; the great philosopher and Catholic monk Peter Abelard was excommunicated partly for asserting, in 1136, that it was wrong to blame Jews for the death of Christ. For a skillful and detailed treatment of this question in history, see Jon Meacham's article from Newsweek.
The point about theology is so simple and basic that it is in danger of being lost in The Passion of the Christ debate--and surely is lost in the movie itself. The point is that according to Christian belief, all people are equally to blame for the death of Christ, and all people are redeemed by his suffering and resurrection. Jesus' ministry and story had to happen somewhere. That it happened among Jews and Romans is no more significant than if it had happened among Turks and Persians or Slavs and Finns or any other groups. All people are equally to blame for the death of Christ, and all people are redeemed by his suffering and resurrection.
The Gospel of Matthew reports at 20:17-19:
As Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day." Whether you believe these events actually happened--I do--does not matter to understanding the theological meaning of Jesus's fate, that all people are equally to blame for the death of Christ and all people are redeemed by his resurrection. The Gospels and the letters of the apostles support this conclusion; the majority of Christian commentary supports this conclusion; that all people were to blame for the death of Christ and all people are redeemed has even been the formal position of the Catholic Church since the Council of Trent almost 500 years ago. The Passion of the Christ seems to urge its audience to turn away from the universal spiritual message of Jesus and toward base political anger; that is quite an accomplishment, and a deeply cynical one.
Of course you can. You have. The KJV translators were hardly what one could call unprejudiced, as is obvious from the results of the translation. And the original selection of Gospels were from a myriad of written versions available. The NT was written by men, and men are fallable, and subject to correction when found to have been hurtfully wrong.
If you can be that selective about what goes into the bible, and that contrived about how it gets translated, it is hardly beyond believing that you could throw out a few incidental references that you know aren't at all likely to have actually occured. The jews of the roman-occupied lands did not betray their potential messiah's: they hid them and supported them at massive cost to themselves, as the Ben Kochba rebellion would soon demonstrate. The story, with the anti-jewish coloring it has, is utterly preposterous, and harmfully incindiary.
You don't have a point. Just two equally irrelevant and misdirected, feeble ad hominem attempts at insult, and a little bit of puffing your chest out.
I listened last night to the Norville show, where Bill Graham's daughter (gawsh, that gene pool holds true! Yikes, even the voice!) was trying to "make nice" with an assertion that she regarded Christianity as a graft onto Judaism.
This is meant as a kind of inclusion, to try to stress no animus, but I suspect it causes deep offence and anger in Jews, all the more frustrating because the Jew cannot express his unhappiness with such a notion. Jews simply may hate the idea that there is so much Judaism in Christianity--do you think that might be the case?
Listening also to Jackie Mason later on Scarborough, he started hollering about all that "Crucify him" and the inclusion of the Sanhedrin, as if all that should have been omitted! And he was serious--he wanted all that was Jewish written out.
Include him out.
I really wonder if what is meant by "antisemitism" is too much "semitism" in Christianity.
What is, in my opinion, the source of all this chaotic angst about the film, is that so many do shy away from acknowledging the simple fact, which anyone who can read can see plainly, that the gospels are, in fact, freighted with anti-jewish passages.
The claims of anti-jewishness are not spurious, they are plain for all to see. They are a big part of the story. (anti-semitism is a different kettle of fish, but confusing the two helps to further clowd the rhetoric.) Orthodox jews are the clear and obvious target of the fundamentally important christian notion that you can only be saved if you accept jesus as savior. Othodox jews cannot do that, and remain orthodox. That was the point of the anti-jewish sentiments when it was written--to wrest jews away from jewery and into christianity.
Probably a better use for your time, as you appear to be unable to argue your way out of a paper bag.
It causes tears. One cannot mark the passage of hundreds of european pogroms in jewish ghettos without tears. One cannot imagine children torn from their parents to be raised Catholic by strangers, without tears.
all the more frustrating because the Jew cannot express his unhappiness with such a notion. Jews simply may hate the idea that there is so much Judaism in Christianity--do you think that might be the case?
No. Jews consider christians their saved bretheren in the One God, in that they both adhere to the same rules of living laid down by God in that portion of the Old Testement the jews refer to as the Torah. It is unfortunate that christians cannot return the compliment, since the New Testement clearly states that those who know of Jesus, but do not accept Jesus as Savior, are condemned. Jews know of Jesus as a respected teacher. If they were to accept him as savior, they would betray, by the lights of the orthodox teachings, and the Sheva ("God is One"), the commandment to "have no other God before me".
So now we are down to physical threats, eh? I'd advise you to grow some sense. The powers that be around here do not take kindly to such shenanigans.
Would this fall under the limitation of third and fourth generation?
Just curious...
But it would make a huge difference in the modern context, especially considering the events of 70 AD.
I am also accustomed to the self-righteous, but rhetorically impaired, telling me to shove off, and then ostentatiously addressing abuse at me through a third person. Get in the discussion, or get out of the discussion, but, at any rate, grow some moral balls and stop behaving like an intellectual purse-snatcher.
Oh, and what about the babies in the womb of the crowd answering PP? Do their cursings last one generation longer? Pretty tepid curse, then, eh? I can't say I'm an expert on multi-generational curse longevity. But I do recognize intent-to-lay-curse when I see it, and many generations of enthusiastic jew killing christians didn't seem to mull this nicety over any too obsessively.
But it would make a huge difference in the modern context, especially considering the events of 70 AD.
Ah...ever the scientist, I see. If curses travel in the blood, than by now, I suspect all jews, save recent converts in Borneo, and most of the rest of us, are now tainted with christ-killer'ism. Even dispite the decimation of jewish blood by Roman legions.
So,...I guess what you want is for me to leave you alone while you take pot shots at me? Very hopeful of you.
I have yet to see you post anything that wasn't a specifically targeted insult.
Well, gosh, was that you trying to answer some of my specific and detailed concerns about the Gospels, or was that someone else here who also posts as .cnI redfuM? Do you have ADD, or is it just that you can't remember what you have said when you are annoyed?
I doubt you have the capacity to do any better.
I am beginning to doubt that you will be producing lucid speech before much longer. Might I suggest that tippling a few more beers never improved anyone's capacity to argue.
They are known for that, you know.
Not presently, but subtract a few centuries, replace "movie theatre" with "church" and tool up with swords, hanging ropes, brands, burning torches, and thumbscrews, instead of bombs, and that's your mid-european christian zealot.
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.