Skip to comments.
MEL GIBSON'S DEEPLY CYNICAL ACCOMPLISHMENT:(Libel Alert!)
TNR ^
| 26FEB04
| Greg Esterbrook
Posted on 02/26/2004 8:32:25 AM PST by .cnI redruM
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-165 next last
To: AFPhys
I'm not totally adverse to the idea that Gibson's movie may have got things wrong. What annoys me and makes me take up Gibson's cause this morning, is the whole paranoid screed about it being a plot.
These liberals have Cynthia McKinney representing their party in congress and claiming Jews were behind 9/11. Their silence during that blatantly antisemitic vituperation was deafening.
But if Mel Gibson makes a movie that depicts Jews in a negative historical light, we need to man the barricades? Give me a break!
41
posted on
02/26/2004 9:28:23 AM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(At the end of the day, information has finite value and may only come at a significant price.)
To: bondserv
Read about "The Passion of the Christ" in the Jewish old Testament!
Isaiah 53
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
42
posted on
02/26/2004 9:29:22 AM PST
by
bondserv
(Alignment is critical!)
To: bobo1
Please don't misunderstand. I was not saying your references weren't relevant.
43
posted on
02/26/2004 9:30:57 AM PST
by
cyncooper
("Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election")
To: cyncooper
Dont' bother with Donh, ck his "in forum" page.
A resident FR conspirazoid, you know, Bush is evil, Saddam and Sons were innocent, the CIA is conspiring with OBL, contempt for worship.
A Simple Contrarian.
To: AFPhys
For a lamb to be sacrificed at Passover, it must be perfect, with no broken bones. That's why he died before his bones needed to be broken to hasten death.
45
posted on
02/26/2004 9:36:44 AM PST
by
Mamzelle
To: AFPhys
Exactly. They broke the legs of the others crucified with Him, but when they came to Jesus he was already dead. To be sure they pierced him with a spear.
Note to Esterbrook, *pierced him with a spear*, not tickled him with a reed or pinch him with their hands. Yes, this was to make sure he was dead so he would not have felt it, but it kind of indicates how they treated their victims. They would have broken his leg if he had been alive, but in fulfillment of scripture his bones were not broken.
46
posted on
02/26/2004 9:37:21 AM PST
by
cyncooper
("Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election")
To: roses of sharon
Eek. Thanks for the headsup.
47
posted on
02/26/2004 9:39:01 AM PST
by
cyncooper
("Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election")
To: cyncooper
Blessings to you, I did misunderstand and publicly apologize.
Blessings, bobo
48
posted on
02/26/2004 9:40:10 AM PST
by
bobo1
To: AFPhys
I think the serious critics of the film are expressing concern that moviegoers are being led to believe that what they are seeing is a very reliable and realistic depiction of historical facts, when actually it is a very speculative depiction. The reality could have much less violent, or much more violent, than the movie version.
There's nothing wrong with a speculative depiction, of course, but what many of us find a bit disturbing are the reports of hordes of moviegoers emerging sobbing and making comments to the effect that they were so deeply moved by these depictions because they believe them to realistic depictions of something that actually happened. It's seeming more like an emotionally frenzied mob -- similar to the mobs that get all worked up over high profile sports contests -- than people thoughtfully responding to a speculative movie about a serious topic. Then again, certain categories of the film's critics are also displaying some frenzied mob-type behavior.
Personally, I have no intention of seeing the movie, no objection to Gibson having made it, no objection to theaters showing it, and no objection to other people seeing it. I ignore the Super Bowl too. Just not into the mob frenzy stuff.
To: .cnI redruM
Caiaphas--
I keep remembering scenes from Jesus Christ Superstar (which I loved as a teen, to the upset of my pastor). Caiaphas and Annas sang a song where one was this fabulous deep bass and the other an annoying whiny tenor. They were fantastic, singing of their fear of Jesus and plotting against him--and they were unquestionably and unapologetically the heavies in that movie. There wasn't even a moderating Nicodemus in the musical, that I recall.
Nobody seemed to think that was antisemitic... lo these many years!
And the crowd that turned on Jesus in the musical was clearly the canaille of the scriptures, "Crucify him!" What, and crucify your king? "We Have no King But Caesar!"
There is no criticism I've read of "Passion" that could not be leveled at JCSuperstar.
50
posted on
02/26/2004 9:45:18 AM PST
by
Mamzelle
To: AFPhys
This complaint about the scourging is simply ridiculous. We have all read the passages that said He was "scourged." Here is the dictionary's explanation for the root of the word:
\Scourge\, n. [F. escourg['e]e, fr. L. excoriata (sc. scutica) a stripped off (lash or whip), fr. excoriare to strip, to skin. See {Excoriate}.]
Logically, scourging then was a method of punishment in which sections of skin were stripped off.
One cannot do that with one or two blows. Gibson had to show the length of the whipping in order to explain the missing skin.
Scourging was a particularly feared form of punishment.
To: .cnI redruM
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. Well, not exactly. In fact, Esterbrook is not even close.
1. Jesus' message was peculiarly a correction to and rejection of the so-called 'sacred traditions' of the Jews which had grown up around the God-given Law. He was also establishing a New Covenant with mankind which modified and carried forward previous covenants given to the Jews. It would have been impossible for Him to deliver this correction and this New Covenant in any other context than that of the Jews.
Moreover, because Jesus was who He was, He was fulfilling a large number of prophecies to the Jews. The "Turks and Persians or Slavs and Finns" would have been unaware of these prophecies and therefore when Jesus explained His own fulfillment of these prophecies, it would have been meaningless to them.
He had to come in the context of the people then called "Jews".
2. "All people" are not 'equally to blame' for His death. Jesus was killed in space-time history by particular people. The people who call themselves "Jews" today or "Italians" today are absolutely unrelated to the Jews and Romans of that day -- and not to 'blame' for the death of Jesus. [Similarly, those who lived and died prior to Jesus' time did not kill Him.] Those who are to 'blame' for it are only those particular men among His contemporaries in a particular time and place who conspired to kill him and implemented it. [Clearly, for example, the disciples and followers of Jesus, also contemporaries, did not kill Him.]
Now here's the subtlety. There can be no dispute, from the Scriptures, that Christ died to make salvation available to ALL men. Thus, those in our time who reject Him, reject the very purpose of His death and thereby accept and ratify the conspiracy of those who killed Him, in effect joining the conspiracy nunc pro tunc.
Moreover, it was the sinfulness of the conspirators -- the same sinfulness which we all have -- which made their conspiracy to kill the Son of God possible. Thus, it is surely possible that, had we lived at that time, we might have joined the conspiracy. [Although all of us reading the Gospel accounts would like to think that we would have been among His followers and not among His killers. Obviously, we cannot know.]
3. Most critically, while He died to make salvation available to all, clearly "all people" are NOT "redeemed by his suffering and resurrection." We cannot judge with certainty who is and who is not redeemed, (we can surely speculate that Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung, for example, are not among the redeemed), but we know the criteria: that those who receive Him and follow Him are redeemed and those who reject Him and do not follow Him are not so redeemed. So, we know the criteria, just not the results of the application of those criteria.
So what Esterbrook writes in wrong on all counts.
To: .cnI redruM
...but remember, Gibson is presenting his movie as the long-suppressed truth, not as an artistic interpretation that may or may not be right.That is not true. I have never read or heard Gibson expressing this movie as a "long-suppessed truth". Quite opposite, he has stated this is his (Gibson's) interpretation.
To: .cnI redruM
No offense...but the Jews need to shut up.
Mel Gibson is not stupid. He went into this, knowing most of the movie moguls in hollywood were Jewish, therefore he knew the risks from that side.
Also, working in hollywood, Mel know all about the PC crowd, the hate crimes laws, the liberals elitists rules on how we should live, talk, eat, walk, and sleep...so...knowing all that, WHY would Mel risk his own money...millions of dollars...in doing a film to intentionally insult and piss off the Jews.
I watch part of a documentary on Discover last night (at least until I fell asleep) called "How Jesus Died". It too stated that the high priests (Jews) resented Jesus because Jesus was telling the people they didn't need to pay the priest to use the 'cleansing pools' before they could be saved. It was cutting into the priest lucrative income, and they went to the Romans about it...then Pilate - the Governor - told them to stop Jesus.
Well, I probably got that about half right...but it doesn't matter, because this is all about two things - the money that the studio moguls are NOT going to make from this film, and the war on religion from the left.
Anything else is just whining and jumping on the bandwagon.
Let's really piss off the hollyweirdos and see Mel's movie TWICE; then buy 2 DVD's when they come out, and give one to a friend. You'll be helping religion, helping Mel, and furthering the cause of Christianity in one fell swoop.
I love to piss off liberals in the morning....(afternoons and evenings too).
54
posted on
02/26/2004 9:49:08 AM PST
by
FrankR
To: roylene
I'm sorry - I somehow missed your comment to me.
Yes, re.Isaiah. Yes, re. the legs were broken of those crucified to hasten death. I wish to make a slight modification to what you wrote, though: it is my understanding that 'normally', those who were crucified did not have their legs broken, but that they were left to agonize interminably on their cross until they finally succumbed. Good Friday was a special case because of the high Jewish holiday, and the appeal to Pilate that the bodies not be displayed during that time brought on the breaking of the legs of the two criminals.
55
posted on
02/26/2004 9:50:41 AM PST
by
AFPhys
(((PRAYING for: President Bush & advisors, troops & families, Americans)))
To: Glenn
So, where is the libel?
................
Wasn't Jesus a Jew?
56
posted on
02/26/2004 9:53:37 AM PST
by
Hidgy
(LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC)
To: GovernmentShrinker
You missed my point: that is, that all historical texts are pretty consistent in describing the actual process of the torture that went on during a Roman scourging or crucifixion ... and from everything that I've read, Gibson's work is faithful to those texts, and not very "speculative" at all.
I won't argue at all with your desire not to witness that brutality. I'm only stating that those who are arguing that the movie is inaccurate about that point are, in effect, arguing that Jesus was not treated with that same typical brutality, and that they would have to explain why they believe he was treated with kid gloves in some ways and brutally in others. (For example, it was not typical to scourge someone condemned to die by crucifixion.)
57
posted on
02/26/2004 9:59:25 AM PST
by
AFPhys
(((PRAYING for: President Bush & advisors, troops & families, Americans)))
To: Mamzelle
I think the over-the-top graphic violence in this is the difference.
58
posted on
02/26/2004 10:00:16 AM PST
by
Pharmboy
(History's greatest agent for freedom: The US Armed Forces)
To: AFPhys
You are correct - I failed to take into consideration - Friday (Passover) Thanks.
59
posted on
02/26/2004 10:00:18 AM PST
by
roylene
To: GovernmentShrinker
It's seeming more like an emotionally frenzied mob --The last impression I've had is of "frenzy". More like somber contemplation.
Yes, many of us do believe Gibson has hit pretty much squarely on exactly what happened.
You don't have to agree, but that's what most of us think.
60
posted on
02/26/2004 10:01:08 AM PST
by
cyncooper
("Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-165 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson