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.
Gee, what a powerful defense against the charges leveled. Anti-gospel animus is understood because the gospels were used as an excuse to torture and kill a GREAT many innocent jews. Cram your head all the way under the sand, maybe that will help.
"Unbelief" indeed. Learn to read with your brights turned on, and respond to what is written, rather than to the voices echoing in your head.
No. Planning on sitting on your patronizing tuchus until another couple of million jews are slaughtered at the prodding of the Gospels? How christian of you.
"But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts." - Jude 1:17-18
We have seen many of these mockers of late, ranging from the subtle (Ted Kopple), to the buffoons (Andy Rooney).
Oh? I think we know at least one result. We know that it is central to christian theology that you cannot be saved, if you know of jesus, but reject him as saviour. As is the case with orthodox jews.
Oh, yes it was. It was THE standard punishment meted out for defying Rome, and for good, prudent reasons. The suffering of crucifixion is excruciating, and long-drawn out--just what the doctor ordered for suppressing rebellion. This is a pretty desperately silly counter-argument that flies in the face of fairly obvious historical precedent. It is also a fairly bizarre argument for a christian to make--do you wish to contend that Christ's suffering on the cross was sort of a merciful cakewalk? So that was a pretty lukewarm redemption, eh? I guess we weren't all that sinful to start with if christ's crucifixion was sort of like a bad splinter.
No...I personally read the Gospel accounts, and assumed they meant what they obviously said. Something I rarely detect in the Gospels defenders.
I think I already stated it earlier in this thread: When I was a kid we were big on going down to the library and looking at art books ... not for the art, mind you, but to see naked women. But if anyone ever asked, we were looking at the art.
True, but supportive of my contention rather than yours.
Not. Reeling off the historical context of the Gospels demonstrates that the malice toward jews in it is intentional, not incidental, or for that matter, accurate. As is, in fact, the case, as attested by the vast majority of honest biblical scholars, both within and without the established churches, that the Gospels were written in such a manner as to placate 2nd century romans, and win converts to christianity from judaism.
Whomever they chose, made no difference to him whatsoever.
Well, of course. BUT THAT'S NOT HOW THE GOSPELS TELL IT, NOW IS IT? PP "finds no fault" in jesus. PP washes his hands of the blood of it, which is why the crowd supposedly says "His blood be upon us, and upon our children".
Hard as it is for christians to understand, it says what it says in the Gospels, not what you would prefer it said.
I am quite accustomed to deep thinkers here at FR responding to concrete arguments by fluffing their feathers like chickens in a henhouse panic. If you are out of arguments, stop arguing, would be my suggestion.
I am also used to people, stung by their inability to defend their own beliefs, lashing out, demanding that I leave them alone, and then lashing out again.
Too bad you can't apply this tremedous display of moral courage to thinking about the possibility that a real christian would find it in his heart to acknowledge a sinful wrong done to millions of innocent people by the principal tenates of his religion.
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.