Posted on 02/28/2004 12:25:49 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:19:46 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
February 28, 2004 -- Mel Gibson's controversial "The Passion of the Christ" scored a second strong day and could take in a whopping $100 million at the box office in just its first five days, experts said yesterday. Thursday's reported take by distributor Newmarket was an estimated $14.7 million, a drop from Wednesday's opening-day number of $23.6 million.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
There is a word that is perfectly embodied in the story of Christ, but is otherwise often misused. "Sacrifice." It means to give up a greater value for a lesser value. God gave up his Son in exchange for all the sins of mankind.
Today, it is often used to simply mean giving up one thing for another. "To save my child from a burning building, I had to sacrifice my record collection." We hear things like that more often than you'd think. It's a powerful word that has lost nearly all of its meaning.
I don't think the entity that they pray to has it in his power to defy the God that appears to be behind Mel's efforts
I agree. Many critics say that this is hard to follow because his sacrifice is "given no context." They don't understand how the flashbacks scenes relate to the story, if they even mention them at all.
To the critics who "don't get" Gibson's movie and feel it should somehow be explained to them, I'll tell them what they've been telling everyone else for decades: They need to get out more, open their minds, and understand that there is more than just their own narrow viewpoint.
sourceBoxOfficeMojo
Theatre re-releases will start the money machine all over again.
Then there's the annual network TV viewing----I hope Mel soaks them for the honor of airing The Passion.
Of course, whatever the sequels and prequels are produced are already sold out.
There's also pure gold in a feature film on "Making The Passion Movie."
And then there's the books by each major player.
Today's receipts should cover all his marketing costs, with the entire rest of the run providing capital for his next project. Mel will not need Hwood money people any more.
Gibson may end up stronger than the Queer Cabal: Geffen, Katzenberg and Ovitz.
Chapter 9 (Ancient Non Christian Sources) of Dr. Gary R. Habermas book The Historical Jesus has a quote on page 203. The footnote says: The quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonain Talmud transl. By I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol III, Sanhedrin 43a p281
The quote from Talmud 43a page 281 is:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover.
End of Quote
Dr. Habermas makes a few points, which include the following:
1. This is a brief account of the death of Jesus. It supports the fact he was crucified, and the time of the event. The term hanged was a less commonly used synonym for crucified at that time. (Gal. 3:13)
2. While the 40 days is not specifically mentioned in the NT, this is consistent with Jewish practice as well as a reading of the threats against Jesus in John 8:58-59; 10:31-33, 39.
3. Its the use of the word sorcery I thought you might find interesting. This account infers Jesus did perform miraculous acts, but attributed them to sorcery. Check out Mark 3:23-29 for a NT account of this charge.
4. Dr. Habermas makes many more interesting points. The one I found interesting is his comment that there is no explanation in this quote as to why Jesus was not stoned, but was hanged. I believe the answer is found in Gal 3:13 and the OT verse it quotes (Deuteronomy 21:23).
Hope this helps :)
Oh, I love my enemies. It's just God's enemies that are distasteful to me.
You are His slayer, and without the grace of God and the theological virtue of charity, by your sins you are His enemy. Christ forgave the very men who drove the nails into His hands and feet. God's enemies are distasteful to me as well--and as much as I am God's enemy by my sins, I find myself distasteful too.
The Talmud being composed of some opinions (basically) about the Torah:
Torah = first five books of the old testament.
The Talmud(composed of):
Mishna = Rabbis opinons of what the Torah REALLY MEANS and the:
Gamarrah = Other Rabbis opinions on what the first Rabbis really meant...
Never could get my mind around that situation.. LOL..
Prefer instead letting the Bible speak for itself.. with first hand bias.. second hand bias is trollific and probably disinformation or outright lies to stem the tide of losing the Rabbis financial base... since many were becoming Christians.. as they are today.. not that I'm a fan of any organized religion...
Jesus was pretty right on he called them Whited Sepulchers(tombs) full of old mens bones.. as it is today.. I sure do like Jesus, WHAT A GUY...
They have not been known as "A-list" movie stars. I was referring to people who Hollywood moguls believe can "carry a picture." The Hollywood system has traditionally tried to use a household name star to bring people to the theaters.
I do not disparage their acting skills in the least.
My argument is valid for the very reason their acting is excellent but they are not household names.
I'm not an expert on Vietnam history by any means. I do know that it was a colony of France (a "Catholic" country) for 25 years before we went and got involved. So certainly there were some Catholic churchs influence. But I believe the predominate beliefs are Buddist and Hao Hoa and Chai something or other..
A has already said to you "don't decend to their level."
I must say however that you have a great point. Who is it that rated the movie R ?
Before the release the knock was that the movie would cause anti-semitism...all that did was cause the attendance to grow.
Now the knock is it is too violent for children under 17...seems to me that this is an attempt to prevent the movie from influencing our youth.
Being a father of 4, two under 17, one 16 and one 13, I would say that if the children under 17 are aware of the true events and given the general violence in the medium, they should and will see it.
When I was in California (stayed in Garden Grove (part of Little Saigon)), we went to a Catholic church in Westminster that was packed with Vietnamese. I think most of them were religious refugees--Catholics who left Viet Nam to escape before the Communists murdered them for their faith.
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.