Mel's Jesus not everybody's messiah

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | April 1 2003 | By Chris McGillion

[Monty22]

"They will have to come to grips with Gibson's hair-brained interpretation of the bible that differs from the message they receive locally which claims that G-d an American warrior, could be trouble at the trailer park."

That is a disturbing, but very true and realistic analysis.

[beachn4fun]

Yup, I see it......

[SoothingDave]

Havoc, if Jesus spoke Greek, why were his last words recorded in the Gospels in Aramaic?

SD

[beachn4fun]

....with no subtitles seems like a pointless stunt.

who said there were no subtitles? I heard Mel say there were.

[fightu4it]

And the unwashed masses will watch and be bathed in the blood of Mel.

Sheeeeeeeeezzz, is there no limit to the crass commercialism. The kicker is, IMHO, the guy is about the sorriest excuse for an actor that I can think of.

[SoothingDave]

Mel Gibson isn't in the movie, he is producing it.

Was Charlton Heston as Moses "crass" and "commercial" as well?

SD

[kitkat]

Thanks, SD

The more literal translation was very interesting. I especially liked, "to be participants of the heavenly mysteries now at this very moment.."

I'm putting Fathr Z. on my favorites list.

[SoothingDave]

Thanks, SD

You're welcome. The tide is turning, and we should expect better translations to be used in English sometime in the not-too-distant future. Another example "And with your spirit" is the proper translation of "et cum spiritu tuo," not "And also with you."

SD

[TexanToTheCore]

and the Protestants got all the good hymns....

and are getting new ones all the time... A few weeks ago our music director decided that the congregation would sing Agnes Dei (Michael W. Smith)rather than having one of the praise team sing it, as is usually done, as a solo. It caught all of us in the choir by surprise as he hadn't informed us ahead of tme.

There were 7,000 people singing their own solos, veins popping in their necks. The choir broke their normally uniform ranks and gathered around the microphones (they are not supposed to do this, ever), and sang at the top of their lungs. The sound was positively astounding, the choir loft was shaking (I'm not kidding, we could feel it move under our feet) and I'm sure they had to check the foundation before the next service.

It was one of the most powerful moment I have ever experienced in Church.

[TexanToTheCore]

I think that the movie will do very well, at the box office and it will probably set records for Christmas sales of DVDs for many years. My family will be seeing it and I suspect everyone in my church will be there, fighting for a seat. I can't wait!

[tuckrdout]

But, the Jews did not kill Jesus! Read the words of Christ himself in John 10:17:

"The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Philip, John, Andrew, Stephan, James (Son of Zebedee), Bartholomew, Thaddeus, Simon and the other James,...the Apostles of Jesus and his friends, were all Jewish. The Bible we follow, with the exception of Luke and Acts; was written by the hand of a Jewish person! Jesus was Jewish, went faithfully to synagog; and there is even an account of him celebrating Hanukkah in John 10:22.

The New Testament is not "anti-Jewish" as some Rabbi's insist on saying it is. If in doubt; read it.

[Sans-Culotte]

All I have read, since the film was announced, said there would be no subtitles. I gleaned this from another article on the movie:

Mel Gibson produced this film in Sassi of Matera, as Pasolini did in 1964 with his Gospel According to St. Matthew. Even Richard Gere did his David here in 1985. It focuses on the 12 hours of Jesus' life leading to his crucifixion. Jesus speaks Latin and Aramaic without the aid of subtitles.

"Obviously, nobody wants to touch something filmed in two dead languages," Mel Gibson explained at a news conference Friday in the Sala Fellini at Cinecitta. "They think I'm crazy, and maybe I am. But maybe I'm a genius.

"I want to show the film without subtitles," he added. "Hopefully, I'll be able to transcend language barriers with visual storytelling. If I fail, I'll put subtitles on it, though I don't want to."

"The idea came to me 10 years ago and has been rambling around in my empty head, very slowly taking shape ever since," Gibson said. "I think this is a pretty timeless and timely story to tell, involving an area where there's turbulence now just as there was turbulence then because history repeats itself.

"I want to show the humanity of Christ as well as the divine aspect," he continued. "It's a rendering that for me is very realistic and as close as possible to what I perceive the truth to be."

I also wonder why a movie that apparently concentrates strictly on the crucifixion of Christ is going to tell people something they don't already know about Christ. There have been movies made already that show Christ's suffering rather graphically. If there's one thing most people know about Christ, it is that He was nailed to a cross. If the movie is not going to portray Christ's teachings about His own coming death, and the significance of that death, then I don't see what is so important about the movie.

[sheik yerbouty]

Hopefully the film will have subtitles.

[CaptainJustice]

No serious historian, religious or atheist, will deny the existence of Jesus Christ. Its not up for debate.

[beachn4fun]

Ok thanks for the update. I think that Mel wants the graphic portrayal of Christ's death to tell the world the importance of his sacrifice. By what I've read, Mel wants the stress Christ's death and the horribliness of it to impact people. He wants people to understand the significance and for those who have forgotten to remember.

[MassExodus]

Let Jesus rest in peace

He ain't dead...

[Future Snake Eater]

OK, well if you want to split legal hairs, technically it was the Romans who killed Jesus, it was just the Jews who turned Him over to them so He could be punished much more harshly than their laws would allow.

As for that verse you posted, He's not absolving the Jews who want Him dead of any guilt, He's saying that since He's the Son of God, he could very easily change the course of events, but He's choosing to fulfill the prophecies about Him.

[John O]

The proof is in the pudding: parishes and dioceses that cling to the authentic and ancient practice of the Faith are thriving, while those that offer worshippers the thin gruel of quasi-Protestant practices are losing members like sieves.

While I agree with your sentiment I take issue with the term quasi-Protestant. Not due to it sounding like a slam against protestants but because it is inaccurate.

A much better way of stating it is that churches (both Catholic and Protestant) who have compromised the gospel are dying while churches who have remained true to the gospel message are growing like crazy.

{please everyone let's not turn this into a Catholic or Protestant bashing party. You know as well as I do that some Catholics and some Protestants will be in heaven together and that God doesn't particularly care what building you worship in as long as you accept His Son Jesus as your Savior}

[txzman]

You are definitely right that both sides were guilty of horrors in the name of the same Bible.

My point should've been narrowed on the subject of the RCC not allowing English translations of the Bible in a time where most of the general populace did not understand Latin.

Ignorance of what was actually in the Bible was a source of power for the RCC. One had to rely on the Priests to protect one's soul - important in a time when life was generally hell to live through.