Skip to comments.
Mel Gibson's unholy Sunday
PAGE SIX - New York Post ^
| 3/06/03
| RICHARD JOHNSON with PAULA FROELICH and CHRIS WILSON
Posted on 03/05/2003 11:35:33 PM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:12:28 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
MEL Gibson is furious at the New York Times over a story that will depict him as a pope-hating, conspiracy-minded cultist.
Gibson went on Bill O'Reilly's show in January claiming reporter Christopher Noxon was doing a "hit piece" on him and "digging into [his] private life . . . getting into [his] banking affairs . . . harassing [his] family, including my 85-year-old father."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: melgibson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
To: rmlew
I know that.
The reading you gave me is reason to reassess my opinions on the historical record. As I acknowledged prior, it does not alter my mataphysical understanding of things; but I do seek to avail myself of as much historical fact as exists. The record is far more unclear than I had been able to discern.
For example, the suggested dubiousness of Josephus' true record, and the reasonable surmise of unterior motive among organizations of men, with regard to the issue at hand, are worthy of examination.
I thank you!
41
posted on
03/06/2003 6:11:30 PM PST
by
dasboot
To: William McKinley
"Who killed Jesus?"
He offered himself up as a sacrifice to cleanse the sins of the world...
It was God's will he die...
42
posted on
03/06/2003 6:23:56 PM PST
by
marajade
To: kattracks
The openly gay heir to the Masterlock fortune is an up-and-comer Uh, not gonna say it. Wouldn't be prudent. At this juncture.
To: dasboot; kstewskis
Exactly!
Anyone idiot reading the Gospels knows how the Jews were incenced at Jesus, and the threat he posed to their base.
They began losing members to this radical Nazorean, which would upset their political power within the Roman community.
They conspired, had him arrested, and brought before Pilate. Pilate continued to fight for Jesus's release, but the scribes and Pharisees threated him with riots in Jerusalem. Since Pilate was rather new as acting Governor to Jerusalem, he wanted to maintain favor with Ceasar, and not appear weak. He then carried out the punishment of death onto Jesus, saving himself having to explain why he couldn't control that province.
We do not condemn the Jews as a whole for this anymore, but you cannot refute what happened.
44
posted on
03/09/2003 4:01:44 AM PST
by
Northern Yankee
(Freedom.... needs a soldier !)
To: Straight Vermonter
Yep... If you get angry, and you're a Christian, well... you're a hipocrite.
But if you're Islamic, and you kill 3000 Americans, well... then you need to be understood that somehow you were offended by the nasty Americans!
Amazing paradox, isn't it?!
45
posted on
03/09/2003 4:10:42 AM PST
by
Northern Yankee
(Freedom.... needs a soldier !)
To: Northern Yankee
I was properly corrected a bit on the other thread and read more Scripture regarding the issue. Perhaps it's better to first approach the entire issue from a point of view in fellowship with God.
First, it's inappropriate to always associate Judaism with simply a religion that rejects Jesus the Christ.
God chose the Israelites and from their seed arose Jesus, the Christ who was Jewish. In a since the Jews killed Jesus Christ, but mainly because Christ had the Law written on His heart and remained obedient to the Father. Jesus, the Christ, gave his life as the Sacrificail Lamb. He was in control of the situation.
Some re-emphasize the point of view that Jesus Christ threatened their base. Read Matthew 21-25 and Luke 13, Isaiah 52-53 and Psalms 40. Consider the admonishment passed to the Pharisees at the time. How those who sought to be called Rabbi and seated in the place of honor, yet failed to honor the sanctity of the Law or walk the walk, are those considered threatened. This particular point of view,...that their base was threatened, is exactly the base which Jesus warned would be found wanting.
I agree that historically the Jews and Romans sought the death of Jesus the Christ unrighteously.
But such a focus misses the focus of Scripture.
46
posted on
03/09/2003 4:24:49 AM PST
by
Cvengr
To: Cvengr
I agree with your assessment.
Blame is not put upon these people, as Jesus himself said, "You would have no power unless it were not given to you from up above."
The scriptures remind us time and time again, that the desires of man is accomplished through God's gift of free will. We can either chose to follow, or we can desire our own path.
Jesus makes this abundantly clear in the Garden of Gethsemane. ("Your will be done.)
I surely hold no ill will towards what was done to Christ, but at the same time am reminded that we can chose our own path, but without divine inspiration, life's moral decisions become more difficult.
47
posted on
03/09/2003 4:43:28 AM PST
by
Northern Yankee
(Freedom.... needs a soldier !)
To: dasboot
I saw the interview Mel did with O'Reilly. Mel got really angry about Noxon's trespasses; but O'Reilly called him on his pique, and intimated that his was not a very Christian attitude. LOL!! And O'Reilly's one to talk? Talk about calling the kettle back....
In a wonderful moment of introspection, Mel admitted the truth of that....without admitting it. O'Reilly snagged him good! He's human.
With all due respect, he didn't. Gibson said in that interview, that he had already "forgiven" the interviewer, before O'Reilly said something to him. Much in the same way that he hoped his movie would bring the message of "faith, hope, love and forgiveness." It's like the issue had already passed for Gibson by the time O'Reilly had him on his show. We are all just now reading about it now.
48
posted on
03/09/2003 10:40:25 AM PST
by
kstewskis
(We need more Mel Gibson's in this world.)
To: Terridan; Judith Anne
you can still read the interview:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75617,00.html
49
posted on
03/09/2003 10:47:45 AM PST
by
kstewskis
(Mel Gibson= good argument for cloning!)
To: dasboot
Actually, I need to clarify myself. O'Reilly *did* say something to him when Gibson was peeved that someone would stoop as low (as Noxon) to harass his family and go after his personal financial business....but Gibson's was, as you said a "human" response, and I think we all agree, a valid one. It wasn't until the end of the interview that Gibson said that he had already forgiven this idiot.
50
posted on
03/09/2003 10:58:05 AM PST
by
kstewskis
(Benedi'cat vos omni'potens Deus Pater, et Mel Gibson!!)
To: kstewskis
Mel was seething after telling Bill of the intrusion upon his family, and after having made the 'threat'. Immediately after that Bill asked, "Have you forgiven him?" Mel's face showed his dilemma for about a second--realized he'd painted himself into a corner--after which he demurred and said [yes].
That's how I remember it. I don't think I have it wrong.
51
posted on
03/09/2003 11:01:50 AM PST
by
dasboot
To: William McKinley
>>with the Romans probably the most so.<<
And who are the desendents of Rome? The Vatican!
Ah ha! The Catholics dd it! (by similar specious reasoning as the "Jews did it.")
To: Northern Yankee
I happened to hear a guy on the radio who said--as a result of his investigations--that Joseph of Aramathea was Jesus' uncle, and probably was his 'father' at the time of his conviction, since his mother's husband Joseph had already died by that time; and, according to Jewish law, 'custody' for Jesus would have devolved upon his uncle.
He also said that Joeseph of Aramathea was a member of the Sanhedrin that 'voted' to suggest Pilate execute him. Joseph was out of town at the time, however, plying his tin-trade.
The guy on the radio also said there is a bit of evidence that Jesus accompanied Uncle Joe to Brittanium, to Cornwall(?), to pick up tin ore, based upon some lore still told in that region. I think his conclusions were a large % surmise, but interesting, nonetheless. The talk ended prematurely....anither installment is coming. Darned if I can remember which SW station it was broadcast on!
53
posted on
03/09/2003 11:13:57 AM PST
by
dasboot
To: Judith Anne
Didn't I read somewhere that Jesus himself got angry?Oh yeah,it's in the Bible.Perhaps Bill should should do a little research before he says someone is not acting "Christian".
54
posted on
03/09/2003 11:21:02 AM PST
by
quack
To: quack
Yep...Jesus got angry, fearful of being cast from his mortal existence: the whole range of human emotion arising from the conditions of having been created in God's image, with knowledge, yet having free-will, tugged upon by the drawing forces of the human vessel, were God's to experience.
God sure got a taste of the diffuculties of human existence, in a manner of thinking, while passing a life, and death, among his own creation. How metaphysically sweet.
God, in his human form, illustrated for us how we may triumph, perfect ourselves; and removes all excuse we may have in asserting that God just doesn't "get it", or understand our plight. We are left without excuse.....He's been here, done this.
What a story!
55
posted on
03/09/2003 11:39:58 AM PST
by
dasboot
To: dasboot
In a sense, the debate over who "killed" Christ is pretty ironic and destructive. You can try to affix blame to individual groups but WE (meaning MANKIND) killed Christ.
The ones who got the ball rolling were Hebrew church leaders, who objected to Christ referring to Himself as the "Son of God". They complained to (and probably paid off) Roman authorities, labelling Christ a "troublemaker" and a probable threat to public order. The Romans were continually at odds with the Hebrews and any political or religious groundswell that smacked of populist support had to be crushed. So, they looked into Christ's activities. They heard about the massive gatherings of people. They enlisted the help of Judas. The apostles denied knowing Christ. They were (understandably) scared and fearing for their lives. When Christ was hauled up before Pontius Pilate (the Roman stooge), He was publicly humiliated but maintained His dignity. Even Pilate had reservations about sending Christ to His death, though, so he decided to put the question to the people. Choose who will live: Christ -- or a prisoner, Barrabas. The people chose Barrabas, and Christ was crucified. Pontius Pilate tried to wash his hands (meaning those of Rome, as well) of responsibility -- but he was responsible for giving the order.
I think if you examine the wider meaning of Scripture, you will find that it was more significant that the PEOPLE chose to crucify Christ than the Hebrew church leaders. The actions of those people in denying Christ reflect the worst instincts in all of us -- instincts that still exist today. Ironically, if you consider this debate over who is to blame, you see the same characteristics which drove the people to deny Christ in the first place.
56
posted on
03/09/2003 12:02:39 PM PST
by
Bush2000
To: Bush2000
Well, I think the dabate tending toward a clarification of issues might be germaine.
Inherent in the placing of blame upon any one peoples is the concommitant escape of responsibility by another.
Metaphysically considered, we all murdered Jesus.
Corporially considered, there were a group of people--human brothers and cousins of certain ethnic groups--who acted, or did not act, to prevent or support the execution. An examination of the particular characters present at the time does not redound to casting one group innocent, another guilty: it's simply an historical interest. And , to be certain, there were no doubt members of the same groups who were on both sides of the issue.
Exploration of who was responsible--regardless of affiliation or ethnicity--should not cause upset; but I can see how some--Jews e.g.--might react irrationally to the irrational assersions of others--Catholics, e.g.--that Jews were, alone, the bad guys.
Anyway, there is no such conciet in my heart. And I wish to make clear that my interest is in no way an effort to escape responsibility for myself or others.
This issue came up as a result of the writer's allusion to that "myth" of Jewish responsibility. Some were there. Some had a part. That's the fact. He sure is defensive...for no reason.
57
posted on
03/09/2003 12:26:01 PM PST
by
dasboot
To: dasboot; kstewskis; lorrainer; MozartLover; Iowa Granny
Lots of conjecture abounds during that trial, and crucifixion.
It was a widely held belief that Simon of Cyrene, helped carry the cross. Now that has come under question.
One of the best accounts I've ever read of Jesus's crucifixion actually came from Rolling Stone Magazine. The author, Tim Cahill (who also wrote for Outside magazine) described how Jesus would have only carried the cross-bar, as the stand was a permanent fixture. Just remove the crossbar after the condemned died.
Jesus also would have been nailed through the wrists to the crossbeam, as the hands would have torn away due to the weight of the body. The medicarpal bone would have added more support, which is in the wrist.
The article is based on findings from the Shroud of Turin, a commonly held belief to be the burial cloth of Jesus. The Vatican over the years has been very careful not to say one way or the other whether it actually was indeed the burial cloth, for fear that people would come to adore that relic.
A fascinating read.
58
posted on
03/09/2003 1:05:39 PM PST
by
Northern Yankee
(Freedom.... needs a soldier !)
To: dasboot
Metaphysically considered, we all murdered Jesus.Hey... I was in Rome at the time, having Pizza at the Colliseum.
Score: Lions 3 Christians 0 Darn!*$^#!
59
posted on
03/09/2003 1:10:51 PM PST
by
Northern Yankee
(Freedom.... needs a soldier !)
To: kattracks
Well that would explain Conspiracy Theory and Payback.
60
posted on
03/09/2003 1:11:52 PM PST
by
RWG
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 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