It's open season on Christianity: Kyle Williams slams reviewers

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, March 2, 2004 | Kyle Williams

[JohnHuang2]

It's open season on Christianity

---

Posted: February 28, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of the Christ," has launched onto thousands of screens across the country and is expected to make $80 million this opening weekend – more than any Christian film ever.

I saw the film with some family and friends on opening night, but words can't really describe the movie and its impact. The fact that this film stayed true to history, was recorded in original biblical languages, beat all the odds and has swirled in controversy for so long has allowed it to hit a chord with millions of viewers.

Unfortunately, these truths, along with how Mel Gibson poured his life, money and reputation into this project, was just too much for some people to handle. Specifically, it has been, over the past year, too much for foes of the Christian faith to handle. The secular, liberal media and some organizations just can't stand the idea of a passionate portrayal of the focus of the Christian faith.

"The Passion of the Christ" has now become a catalyst for secularists to express their rage. It's been apparent to most that the media is filled with elitists who thumb their nose at Christians, but this film has allowed critics a free shot at Christianity without specifically attacking Christians.

Under the guise of "reviewing" and "opining" on a movie, it's been a field day for any bigot to take a free swing at Jesus. Coupled with that and their disgust at the idea of Christ's passion being brought out into the public eye, the passion against "The Passion" has flooded newspapers and various media outlets.

It all started with the ardent criticism of Mel Gibson, his family and his film by some Jewish groups, claiming anti-Semitism. It was rather puzzling to see a group of people attack Christianity, the Jewish faith's closest friend, under the excuse of "The Passion of the Christ."

That excuse is the gateway to many in attacking Christianity.

Frank Rich wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, fanatically bashing Mel Gibson, his faith, his family, movie and expressing his opposition to anything of which Gibson has been a part.

Salon.com also had a terrible review of the film, saying that Christians, Jews and Arabs should be worried about its impact.

Newsweek Senior Editor David Ansen compared the film with pornography and rape: "I found myself recoiling from the movie … the same feeling I had watching Gaspar Noe's notorious 'Irreversible,' with its nearly pornographic real-time depiction of a rape."

One reviewer in the Fort Worth Star Telegram wrote, "The message – that if you do not embrace Jesus Christ, you will go directly to hell – could not be presented any more oppressively. 'The Passion of the Christ,' finally, is an invitation-only affair – if you're not a believer the way Gibson thinks you should believe, you have no place at his (or His) table."

The truth of "The Passion" is revolting to many opinion-givers, including the increasingly senile and committed secularist Andy Rooney, who called Mel Gibson a "real nutcase." He won't see the Passion because, he says, "I'm not going to spend $9 just for a few laughs."

Christopher Hitchens wrote a review of the film in the UK's Mirror, titled, "I detest this film … with a Passion." In it, Hitchens says the film was marketed toward the "gay Christian sado-masochistic community." He calls Mel Gibson a "sicko" and generally fabricates details about the movie.

In addition to these critics, reviewers around the country, in radio, television and print have expressed their hatred of this movie. It's interesting how general condemnations of Christianity can be excused under the banner of "entertainment review."

Still, "The Passion of the Christ" is not above reproach. There certainly are sincere writers and pundits who have a real problem with the film for various reasons, as well as Christians who oppose the idea of a movie depicting Jesus. Even so, in mainstream media, secularists either don't know how to manage this movie, mock the entire idea or spout off their opposition to "The Passion."

"The Passion of the Christ" is a blockbuster, underdog hit. The idea of making a historically accurate depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was a completely absurd idea to most in the industry. Now, millions are seeing it and being changed by it, and media figures don't understand, nor do they know how to handle it.

Bigots who poured their hatred into opposition of this film have failed. If they accomplished anything, they propelled this film to the national spotlight.

This film will still not achieve what many hope: an acceptance of Christianity in mainstream media. If anything, secularists will intensify their attacks and condescension toward Christians.

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, March 2, 2004

Quote of the Day by bmwcyle

[ccmay]

recorded in original biblical languages

I thought the New Testament was written in Greek and the Old Testament in Hebrew.

Some of the minor prophets wrote in Aramaic but it was a drop in the bucket compared to ancient Hebrew.

I don't believe that there is a single word of the Bible that was first written in Latin.

-ccm

[NYer]

The idea of making a historically accurate depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was a completely absurd idea to most in the industry. Now, millions are seeing it and being changed by it, and media figures don't understand, nor do they know how to handle it.

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[Wilhelm Tell]

It finally struck me why "The Passion" is so feared and hated by the chattering class and the Hollyweird elite. I was standing in line shopping, and two people nearby in line who I presume were strangers to each other began small-talk. One person asked the other if he had seen Gibson's movie. They agreed that the movie was brutal but accurate. With that, they were no longer discussing the movie -- they were talking about Jesus and about things they read in the Bible. Then a third person in the line joined the conversation.

It did make me wonder how many spontaneous conversations -- not so much about a movie but about Jesus -- might have happened in the past week or so. If the movie is causing people to think seriously about Jesus, no wonder it is reviled in the politically-correct media.

[Don W]

I believe she was referring to the languages that were in common use at the time of Christ in ancient Israel, and were most likely as close to how it actually sounded (the vocalizations and noises of humans communicating in their common tongues) at the time of the crucifixion.

BTW, my King James Version bible only mentions "translated from the original tongues", not any specific languages. Aramaic, Hebrew, it's all Greek to me (BG).

[fire_eye]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. "Those who cannot create, become critics". (And those who can't even qualify as critics, become *teachers*.)

The more the gang of leftout wannabes howls, the better it gets for Gibson.

[walden]

Aramic was the spoken language of the common people in that part of the world at that time, while Hebrew was known by the high priests and used, as you say, in scripture. A very utilitarian sort of Greek was spoken by almost everyone of every nationality and ethnic group, which is why it was used for the Gospels and Epistles. I expect that the Romans mostly knew Latin-- surely they would have used it to communicate with Rome.

So, there were lots of languages used, and Gibson could choose. I believe he chose primarily Aramic and Latin because he wanted two dead languages-- that ensures that everyone except scholars of ancient languages has the same experience of the movie, which I think is a wonderful, scripturally defensible choice. After all, Christ came for all of us equally-- shouldn't we all come to him equally?

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Ping

[oyez]

BFL

[Dr. Scarpetta]

I was standing in line shopping, and two people nearby in line who I presume were strangers to each other began small-talk. One person asked the other if he had seen Gibson's movie.

I enjoyed talking with people while we waited in line at the movie. One man shook hands with us, introduced himself and his sons, and other people were checking that they had enough tissues with them!

[steve8714]

It is a matter of dispute (see Keating) in what order the Gospels were written, and their original languages.
The epistles are a more straightforward thing..we know in which languages they were written.
Old testament written over so many centuries, most likely in whatever scholarly language was prevalent.

[steve8714]

It is probably more correct in hindsight to say "translated from an earlier tongue", but this is hindsight and not a criticism.

[biblewonk]

It's open season on Christianity

It always has been, as the bible says, and we are to rejoice.

[17th Miss Regt]

Newsweek Senior Editor David Ansen compared the film with pornography and rape: "I found myself recoiling from the movie … the same feeling I had watching Gaspar Noe's notorious 'Irreversible,' with its nearly pornographic real-time depiction of a rape."

That's a start. Now, Mr. Ansen, make the important connections. What happened in the movie that you recoiled from was made necessary by the sinful nature of all mankind. The sacrifice in the movie atoned for all sins, past, present and future. He did it for you.

[aruanan]

This film will still not achieve what many hope: an acceptance of Christianity in mainstream media.

Those folks need to read their Bible a bit more. The cross (and, of course, the resurrection) is the core of Christianity. The crucified life of a believer will never be accepted by the world. If Jesus said that they, the mainstream of the world, would kill believers on account of him, the mainstream certainly isn't going to accept Christianity on account of a blockbuster movie.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It strikes me that Gibson's choice of Aramaic and Latin as the languages of the characters is perfectly natural; anything else is like a film about WWII in which the Germans converse among themselves in English. The choice of those languages tells the speaker of modern languages--tells us--that we wouldn't have understood what was being said with the language knowledge we have. It tells us that even the Greek of the original New Testament manuscripts was not the native language of the Jews nor of the Romans who actually participated in the event. It tells the truth.

And if the production with subtitles is a success in America, it can succeed worldwide. O me of little faith! I started out hoping it would gross $100 million!

[Gritty]

And if the production with subtitles is a success in America, it can succeed worldwide

One interesting thing about doing this movie in ancient languages is everybody gets to see and experience it with subtitles. This will not be seen as an "American" movie dubbed in "Japanese", or whatever the language is in the particular country.

We all know how distracting dubbing can be, or subtitles which stunt the dialogue. Instead, the technical impact will be the same in all languages, and it can be easily translated into them all. The impact should be universally similar.

It's a masterful concept if one can pull it off, and apparently Gibson has!

[philosofy123]

Acceptance of Christianity is one thing, and respect of Christians is another. The media elites know full well that Christians have no solidarity or leadership. They can be insulted with little or no consequences. If the Christian people are happy to accept this discriminatory practice against them, and or they are unaware that they are being ridiculed and regarded with contempt, then they do deserve what they have got.

The worthless priests, pastors, and reverends in the Christian faith have witnessed a whole year of attacks on Mel Gibson just because of his religion. Just as if we were taught to respect everybody's religion except Christianity. These worthless leaders of the Christian faith in this country should have been mobilizing their followers in their churches to write editorials, and threaten to discontinue subscription to papers, magazines, and CBS. If the FULL wrath of the more than 200 million Christians was exercised, we could have closed down any business establishment regardless of its size. But there was practically no mobilization among the ranks of the followers of Christianity. A couple of days ago a Catholic priest came out to criticize the movie too.

As the saying goes about the Nazis, first they came after the gypsies, so I was not one, I did not care, then they came after the Jews, so, I was not one, so I did not care, then they came after the Catholics, I was not one, so I did not care, then they came after me - there was no one left to care. The policy of increment is alive and well, and we are felling its byproducts today as the majority of the population is powerless towards head on insult to their faith. Here we have a majority Christian population, and still are unable to have equality and freedom of speech.

[american colleen]

I picked up Jim Bishop's "The Day Christ Died" the other night and read it again (I read it years ago when I was young) and I was stunned by many of the similarities between Bishop's telling of the Passion and Mel Gibson's version of it. It's a beautiful book (written by a non-Catholic) and worth reading... but now after seeing the Passion movie, plain reading and mentally visualizing the events is forever changed for me. I said the "sorrowful mysteries" last night on my way home from work (I have a Fr. Patrick Peyton tape) and not once did my mind wander off and I was on the verge of tears the whole time.

I saw the movie last Friday with my daughter and was supposed to see it again this weekend but I did not end up going. I have a pull to see it again that I can't explain, it's almost a part of me or something.

[Jaded]

Well said.