"Passion" takes record from "Return of the King"
Fearless Freep
Christ" with a box-office take of $125.2 million, the greatest debut in
movie history by a film opening on a Wednesday.
The previous record holder, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,"
had $124.1 million.
Freep
Tony Hwang
Went to see the Passion twice already.
Wife wanted to go second time.
Tony
D.R
"Fearless Freep" <fr...@thisdimension.com> wrote in message
news:O%O0c.98627$n62....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
I am looking forward to seeing it tonight!
D.R.
SILENCER
If I want to see people get ripped to shreds, I can always watch Starship
Troopers.
Yeah, the movie is shit, but tt has thousand foot long spaceships slamming
into each other, too.
Now THAT'S Entertainment.
ßikeŞainter
"Fearless Freep" <fr...@thisdimension.com> wrote in message
news:O%O0c.98627$n62....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Yeah, but I'm waiting to see his next release....... ;^}=
...................................................................
Actor Mel Gibson stirred controversy once more today, announcing that he
would produce, direct and star in a major motion picture entitled "Lethal
Rabbi".
Mr. Gibson, who established himself as a producer-director-actor with the
Oscar-winning "Braveheart", told reporters today, I'll be wearing three hats
on this film, and one of them will be a yarmulke.
The film, about a rogue cop/Orthodox rabbi who goes on a killing rampage in
Los Angeles, has already drawn the ire of several Jewish groups who have
accused Mr. Gibson's latest cinematic foray of being anti-Semitic.
Anti-defamation activists who have objected to the Gibson film especially
take issue with the character played Mr. Gibson, Sgt. Shlomo Levenstein, aka
"Dirty Shlomo".
In one scene, for example, Sgt. Levenstein uses an AK-47 assault rifle to
dispatch a drug dealer and then delivers the line, "Mazel tov, suckah!"
Mr. Gibson took time out on the "Lethal Rabbi" set today to defend the film,
saying that he wrote the script only after extensive research into the world
of Orthodox rabbis who were also rogue cops.
"This movie tells the truth about Orthodox rabbi/rogue cops in the hopes of
fostering love and understanding around the world," said Mr. Gibson, wearing
Hasidic side curls and a shoulder holster.
Mr. Gibson also denied what he called "exaggerated" reports that Sgt. Shlomo
goes on a nonstop killing spree in the movie.
"In the film, we take great pains to show that he takes Saturday off," Mr.
Gibson said.
Harvey James
Gee thanks for that valuable and important information. I'll be able to sleep tonight.
Tony Hwang
Good deal for 25 million dollar investment.
Tony
Fearless Freep
Freep
"ßikeŞainter" <hea...@home.com> wrote in message
news:sUP0c.53026$W62....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
Fearless Freep
business where they should know from entertainment, apparently.
Freep
"Tony Hwang" <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:l4Q0c.643261$JQ1.2484@pd7tw1no...
Squid
>
> > Updated figures show Mel Gibson's foreign-language "The Passion of the
> > Christ" with a box-office take of $125.2 million, the greatest debut in
> > movie history by a film opening on a Wednesday.
> >
> > The previous record holder, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the
King,"
> > had $124.1 million.
> >
> > Freep
> >
> >
So is Jesus Solid State or Tube ? Does he come in tweed :)
Dana Craft
wrote:
Go ahead. Make my Sabbath.
I can hardly wait. ;^)
Dana Craft
>Go ahead. Make my Sabbath.
>
>I can hardly wait. ;^)
Ooops, my mistake. I was thinking of 'Unclean Harira"
(translation Dirty Chicken Soup)
Jeff Engelmann
"Squid" <tentac...@remove-spam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6pQ0c.19883$C65....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
As they say to pretty girls in Arkansas, "You ain't from around here, are
ya?"
ßikeŞainter
> Is that based on a true story?
>
> Freep
>
It was a joke, Freep. ;^}=
mindrot
"SILENCER" <sile...@shhhh.x.org> wrote in message
news:ZOP0c.32277$Bk1....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
i think the best thing about that flick was that so few people realised it
was a parody. ie, 'good', clean cut, wholesome, freedom loving americans vs
evil alien savage brutal oppressive bugs.
heh, and how about those secret military police uniforms? heil
Fearless Freep
I took the Kerry stuff to work, BTW. Great shit. The guys in the lab laughed
their asses off.
Keep them coming...
Freep
"ßikeŞainter" <hea...@home.com> wrote in message
news:q1R0c.53047$wr2....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
Bruce Morgen
Hmm, Mel Gibson: devout
traditional Catholic or
incredibly savvy artist
and marketer?
The thing is, there
doesn't seem to be the
usual left-right divide
on this movie, check
William Safire (very
literate, right-leaning
columnist) in today's
NYT:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/opinion/01SAFI.html?th>
This is from acclaimed
SF author (and Mormon)
Orson Scott Card:
<http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-29-1.html>
It's hard to believe
these two exceptionally
talented and intelligent
writers saw the same
film!
................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Tony Novacheck
>
>As they say to pretty girls in Arkansas, "You ain't from around here, are
>ya?"
>
>
You got that right on ... that analogy, that is. The entire time I was in
Arkansas, I never really dated a girl *from* AR. That's a pretty sad
commentary on what was available for LTR's. I actually moved out of there to
OH to step to the next level with the woman who is now my wife.
Lostpup198
"The human race divides itself politically
into those who want to be controlled,
and those who have no such desire."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
(1907-1988)
TimePixDC
>From: "Fearless Freep" fr...@thisdimension.com
>Date: Mon, Mar 1, 2004 5:42 PM
>Updated figures show Mel Gibson's foreign-language "The Passion of the
>Christ" with a box-office take of $125.2 million, the greatest debut in
>movie history by a film opening on a Wednesday.
I was going to see the film when it opened on Ash Wednesday but found I
couldn't because I've given up bullshit for Lent.
TimePixDC
>From: "Fearless Freep" fr...@thisdimension.com
>Date: Mon, Mar 1, 2004 7:06 PM
>There's no shortage of fools
Like those poor evangelical Christians who have given their money to Mel Gibson
not realizing that he firmly believes they're all fools that are going straight
to hell when they die.... Because they ain't Roman Catholics....
Pretty funny....
D.R
"SILENCER" <sile...@shhhh.x.org> wrote in message
news:ZOP0c.32277$Bk1....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
> If I want to see people get ripped to shreds, I can always watch Starship
> Troopers.
Only that Starship Troopers is fiction, and
the Passion is based on historical fact.
Anyways, saw the movie tonight. Excredible!
Haven't felt so moved since seeing Braveheart.
Recommended!
D.R
"TimePixDC" <time...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040301233235...@mb-m06.aol.com...
You have a point. However, it doesn't change the
historical facts regardless of Mel Gibsons own
convictions. The movie was well researched and only
seemed to have a very small amount of Catholic bias
eg: one or two certain references regarding Mary.
D.R
"Tony Hwang" <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:RzP0c.662263$X%5.117723@pd7tw2no...
Awesome movie. Awesome message.
howard aubrey
"Fearless Freep" <fr...@thisdimension.com> wrote in message
news:O%O0c.98627$n62....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
And he didn't even have to promote it! All the hysterical
nutcases did it for him!
Ain't life grand, LOL.
>
howard aubrey
"ßikeŞainter" <hea...@home.com> wrote in message
news:sUP0c.53026$W62....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
ROFLMAO!! Thank You!!!
>
>
>
RonSonic
wrote:
Actually they were Argentinians or some such.
>heh, and how about those secret military police uniforms? heil
Much tongue, much cheek. Good fun all around.
Ron
RonSonic
I don't know a single Prot who's had any problem with the Catholicness of that
movie. The Pentacostals and Evangelicals I've talked with consider it a "fresh"
angle on the story. When told that it is a VERY Catholic interpretation, they've
been happy to know that so much is the same. They don't venerate Mary, but at
the same time can sure see how she'd be important to Him and a very useful
viewpoint in telling the story. Of course they also say that the pope should
give up the silly hats so we could all get along.
As for Pixie's feeble attempt to sow discord, that's all he's got and it would
be cruel to take it away.
Ron
RonSonic
>Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>Harvey James wrote:
>>> In article <O%O0c.98627$n62....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "Fearless Freep" <fr...@thisdimension.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Updated figures show Mel Gibson's foreign-language "The Passion of the
>>>>Christ" with a box-office take of $125.2 million, the greatest debut in
>>>>movie history by a film opening on a Wednesday.
>>>>
>>>>The previous record holder, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,"
>>>>had $124.1 million.
>>>>
>>>>Freep
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gee thanks for that valuable and important information. I'll be able to sleep tonight.
>>Hi,
>>Good deal for 25 million dollar investment.
>>
>Hmm, Mel Gibson: devout
>traditional Catholic or
>incredibly savvy artist
>and marketer?
Bruce, your grammar's usually pretty good; why is the word "or" in the middle of
that sentence and why does it end with a question mark?
>The thing is, there
>doesn't seem to be the
>usual left-right divide
>on this movie, check
>William Safire (very
>literate, right-leaning
>columnist) in today's
>NYT:
>
><http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/opinion/01SAFI.html?th>
>
>This is from acclaimed
>SF author (and Mormon)
>Orson Scott Card:
>
><http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-29-1.html>
>
>It's hard to believe
>these two exceptionally
>talented and intelligent
>writers saw the same
>film!
One was writing more about the stuff about the film and the other was writing
about the movie itself. Beyond that, it is the nature of art that different
people will see a thing differently. Were this some simple minded screed there
would be no debate about it, or, rather the debate would be whether one agrees
or disagrees. Instead it is a work of art and we get to argue about what it
means. Mel Gibson as a movie maker has typically been a fairly blunt instrument,
deftly wielded, but a blunt instrument nonetheless. Here he has done a beautiful
job painting very real and complex characters in roles that are usually
performed by cliche's and cardboard cutouts.
That is at the core of how this movie tells its story so well and why it is not
going to be used as an incitement. We get to know these people and we recognize
them as real people with the range of character and personality we find in those
around us. A bigot will not need this movie, in fact he won't like it a bit, it
won't conform to his prejudices.
Caiaphus, the high priest does not come off well, if there is a human bad guy in
this movie it is him. He has clearly decided that Jesus must die and will simply
see to it. It is clear he hates the Roman occupiers and if he can't be rid of
them he will use them as the anvil on which to hammer his enemies. On his enemy
list are those whom the Romans might prefer to have his job - Jesus is at the
top. To my eye and probably any other modern moviegoer he reminds us more of the
angry beards we are presently wrestling with in Iran and Iraq than any modern
Jew. The movie is very clear that the people of Judea were decent people with
many characters who are not followers or disciples treating the movie's Hero as
well and honorably as circumstance allows.
It could only be called anti-Semitic by someone who would protest any movie that
portrays Jews as ordinary people with all the usual human failings, or who uses
that word as a code for something that other Jews should hate.
One would be silly to expect that any Jew would have enthusiasm for any movie
based on the New Testament. But by the billowing plumes of black smoke rising
from this one you'd expect there to be _some_ sort of fire beneath it. There
isn't a child's birthday candle. If any anti-Jewish sentiment arises from this
movie it will be from resentment that such a loving and affecting portrayal of
the Judean people has been described in such hateful, bitter and false language.
Safire (and others) seem to worry how other cultures might translate and
interpret the movie. Sorry, that is not the artist's problem. He works for
himself and his audience. If some other audience does not get it, so it is.
Perhaps an Orthodox Jew would see more in this movie than most of its audience
does since they do actually learn Aramaic to study the Talmud. The rest of us
have nothing to go on but the actor's work, the subtitles and the inevitable
cultural knowledge of the basic story. What we, the mainstream, see is simply
the best, most powerful adaptation of a biblical story to the big screen ever
made. A movie that stands on its own telling a story that has affected all of
Western Civilization for 2,000 years. Believe or not, it is one hell of a good
movie.
Ron
Tony Hwang
Religion is man made. Faith is even before there were churches.
Don't confuse this two.
Tony
RonSonic
wrote:
Ya know, right up until about a month or two ago it looked like this thing was
going to go out on 16mm for a few specialty houses and then fall straight to
video for church viewings and such.
Probably for the first time in my movie watching life I am hoping that the
people who made a movie come out with a prequel.
Ron
TimePixDC
>Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2004 4:03 AM
>it doesn't change the
>historical facts regardless of Mel Gibsons own
>convictions.
Facts? What facts? He took his own bizarre interpertaion of soem parts of The
Bible, added some things from a few very strange religious mystics and called
it a movie.
>The movie was well researched and only
>seemed to have a very small amount of Catholic bias
There's very little Catholic bias in The Passion because Mel Gibson rejects the
Roman Catholic Church as it is today. He's a member of a small right wing sect
that calls themselves Catholic but is in no way accepted by the church.
TimePixDC
>Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2004 9:17 AM
>When told that it is a VERY Catholic interpretation,
It isn't a Catholic interpretation, it's a Mel Gibson interpretation. The
Catholic Church hasn't accepted it the way he tells it for years.
TimePixDC
>Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2004 3:58 AM
>Only that Starship Troopers is fiction, and
>the Passion is based on historical fact.
Prove it.
Mr. Electron
"Harvey James" <hja...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hjames-4B89D6....@nr-ott02.bellnexxia.net...
> In article <O%O0c.98627$n62....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "Fearless Freep"
<fr...@thisdimension.com> wrote:
>
> > Christ" with a box-office take of $125.2 million, the greatest debut in
> > movie history by a film opening on a Wednesday.
> >
> > The previous record holder, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the
King,"
> > had $124.1 million.
> >
> > Freep
> >
> >
>
>
sleep tonight.
Yes, it was such an articulate and vivid synopsis of the film.
Thanks, Fraidy.
With Fraidy's money grubbing mentality, I wouldn't be surprised
if he'd worship Satan to own the entire world's riches, unlike the
star of the film who refused to.
Mr. Electron
"RonSonic" <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:955940dpufvnv2jn7...@4ax.com...
It's a snuff film, Ron. And since you and all the others
seemed to have enjoyed seeing such violence,
that speaks volumes about your barbarism as well
as *your* cruelty.
Mike Cressey
> couldn't because I've given up bullshit for Lent.
but I've now watched at least 5 - 6 hours of program discussing the
film, the gospels & general history of that time. I don't think you
can take the gospels literally which is exactly what Gibson did.
There were many other stories about Jesus he could have told but he
choice the most gruesome.
Mike
Bruce Morgen
>On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:21:15 -0500, Bruce Morgen <edi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Harvey James wrote:
>>>> In article <O%O0c.98627$n62....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "Fearless Freep" <fr...@thisdimension.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Updated figures show Mel Gibson's foreign-language "The Passion of the
>>>>>Christ" with a box-office take of $125.2 million, the greatest debut in
>>>>>movie history by a film opening on a Wednesday.
>>>>>
>>>>>The previous record holder, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,"
>>>>>had $124.1 million.
>>>>>
>>>>>Freep
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gee thanks for that valuable and important information. I'll be able to sleep tonight.
>>>Hi,
>>>Good deal for 25 million dollar investment.
>>>
>>Hmm, Mel Gibson: devout
>>traditional Catholic or
>>incredibly savvy artist
>>and marketer?
>
>Bruce, your grammar's usually pretty good; why is the word "or" in the
>middle of that sentence and why does it end with a question mark?
I take it you see him as
all those things. Fair
enough, that's possible!
>
[snip]
Ed
After reading your posts for the last couple of months I悲 say you
donæ„’ have much fun in your life: sound pretty bitter, angry,
disillusioned to me. I also get a strong scent of Marxist, atheist,
hopeless. Too bad.....hope you recover.
j...@3inthekey.com
Just read the Gospels and then see the movie and compare the two. The
premise is based on the Gospels.
Much of what we accept as fact regarding the Greeks and Romans was
verified in the same way that the events of Jesus' life were.
Really, unless you have video, how can you prove beyond a doubt that
many things occurred?
That being said, it does appear that Mel Gibson took some liberties,
especially with the gory parts.
TimePixDC
>Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2004 2:08 PM
>> >Only that Starship Troopers is fiction, and
>> >the Passion is based on historical fact.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>Just read the Gospels
I asked you to prove it, not site a religious tract of dubious historical
validity.
TimePixDC
>Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2004 1:39 PM
>I also get a strong scent of Marxist, atheist
Then get your head out of Lenin's ass.
D.R
There is more evidence for the life of Jesus Christ
than say that of Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great,
etc and other historical figures that are widely
accepted. Even if you ignore the religious texts,
there are secular historical writings that support
the history of all 3 persons.
D.R
Sand Creek Mikey
But I am a reasonable man, and can be convinced if you can cite this
evidence you speak of.
D.R
"Mike Cressey" <goo...@MusicIsLove.com> wrote in message
news:e5c4ec2d.0403...@posting.google.com...
<SNIP>
> There were many other stories about Jesus he could have told but he
> choice the most gruesome.
>
> Mike
The point he was making, was _the_ _reason_ that Jesus Christ
came in the first place, to _willingly_ die for the sins of
mankind. Excluding this fact, and chosing another story would
have missed the point entirely. Too many people overlook this
fact and prefer to reduce Jesus to merely a being moral person
like Ghandi and a good teacher, instead of the savior of mankind.
The content of the movie was more realistic in the way that it depicted graphically how
romans treated their prisoners/victims
in those times. Thems the facts. Sure he could've made the
sanitized P.C. version, but that was not the point.
Anyone who actually heard Mel Gibson would know that it was not
about the money, but personal convictions, and that it was a huge
financial gamble as no-one would touch this project.
D.R
"Sand Creek Mikey" <mi...@sandcreekstudio.com> wrote in message
news:c22sft$193$1...@news.state.mn.us...
> I find this difficult to believe.
>
> But I am a reasonable man, and can be convinced if you can cite this
> evidence you speak of.
Here are but a few quotes from some Roman Historians......
Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most
exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the
populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during
the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most
mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea,
the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from
every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was
first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude
was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they
were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and
burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his
gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with
the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals
who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it
was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were
being destroyed."
Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he
was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his
disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his
disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them
three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the
messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)
Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who
wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness
that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:
"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of
the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a
full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]
Fearless Freep
to matter to them what Mel thinks, if they think he's right. Otherwise, why
should they care? Only an idiot would burn his time and energy worrying
about what people he thinks are wrong, think.
Why do you think I don't give a half a shit whenever YOU say something? If I
ever start thinking you're right, THEN I'll worry.
It's a movie they want to see, and seeing movies costs money. If they didn't
want to pay to see it, they could stay home.
Freep
Fearless Freep
Hmmm, what a conundrum: on a matter of Roman Catholic dogma, do I believe
the Pope, or TamPax?
That was easy,
Freep
"TimePixDC" <time...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040302105646...@mb-m14.aol.com...
Tony Novacheck
>It's a snuff film, Ron. And since you and all the others
>seemed to have enjoyed seeing such violence,
>that speaks volumes about your barbarism as well
>as *your* cruelty.
Sorry to poke a huge hole in that theory, but a "snuff" film, by definition,
portrays actual violent acts in real time and real acts ... not recreations.
Lostpup198
"The human race divides itself politically
into those who want to be controlled,
and those who have no such desire."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
(1907-1988)
RonSonic
>On 2 Mar 2004 11:08:31 -0800, j...@3inthekey.com (j...@3inthekey.com)
>wrote:
>
>>Just read the Gospels and then see the movie and compare the two. The
>>premise is based on the Gospels.
>
>However, the Gospels are books written by men no less than(and
>often much more than) 30 years after Jesus' death, often through
>writers since few men could write in those days. Those men had
>a vested interest in the Religion they had built at that point.
>In addition, those who "wrote" the New Testament *selected* which
>writings they wished to include - and did so almost *300* years
>after Jesus' death.
>
>Do you know that Jesus was not considered divine at his death ?
>Do you know how long it was before the Apostles considered him to
>be divine ? Do you know why Jesus' *brother* James was excluded from
>the RC New Testament ? Do you know how many books and writings they
>left out of the NT ?
>
>>Much of what we accept as fact regarding the Greeks and Romans was
>>verified in the same way that the events of Jesus' life were.
>
>Yes, and much of it found to be a bit different that this nice, neat
>story they told you in CCD.
>
>>Really, unless you have video, how can you prove beyond a doubt that
>>many things occurred?
>
>Take a look at some of what I outlined and tell me how any historian
>could be comfortable with the Mel movie.
Inasmuch as they'll find nothing that directly contradicts, they will just have
to make allowance for opinion and supposition. Much as they must do on so many
other subjects.
>>That being said, it does appear that Mel Gibson took some liberties,
>>especially with the gory parts.
>
>How else could he make so much money or paint the Jews with such
>a horrid brush ?
Curious then that he had the Romans perpetrating and Jews mostly cringing to see
such abuse. Odd that he portrayed the overwhelming majority of the Judeans
sympathetically.
It's pretty clear you either did not see the movie or have chosen to lie about
it.
Ron
Mr. Electron
That statement was based on what Christopher Hitchens
said what he thought of the film. And he didn't think Gibson
was much of an "artist" with all the extreme violence depicted.
I haven't seen the film - just waiting until it's shown on cable.
But am already having my doubts about the film being religious
in nature, especially from the ones who seem to approve
of what is being reported as what appears as a snuff film.
Is that better, Tony?
"Tony Novacheck" <lostp...@aol.comdogdoo> wrote in message
news:20040302185936...@mb-m12.aol.com...
RonSonic
wrote:
>That's not what the Pope said.
>
>Hmmm, what a conundrum: on a matter of Roman Catholic dogma, do I believe
>the Pope, or TamPax?
>
>That was easy,
>
>Freep
Got the guy killfiled so I don't see his crap first hand. The one thing to know
about Pixie is that in the great game of life he is a heckler on the sidelines.
Even in the debates here, he is nothing more than that. Just a noisy kibbitzer.
Ron
RonSonic
>>From: "Mr. Electron" orsomeon...@zap.com
>
>>It's a snuff film, Ron. And since you and all the others
>>seemed to have enjoyed seeing such violence,
>>that speaks volumes about your barbarism as well
>>as *your* cruelty.
>
>Sorry to poke a huge hole in that theory, but a "snuff" film, by definition,
>portrays actual violent acts in real time and real acts ... not recreations.
>
>
>Lostpup198
Add Ed to the list of people who didn't see the movie but want to criticize.
Ron
RonSonic
>RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:21:15 -0500, Bruce Morgen <edi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Harvey James wrote:
>>>>> In article <O%O0c.98627$n62....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "Fearless Freep" <fr...@thisdimension.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Updated figures show Mel Gibson's foreign-language "The Passion of the
>>>>>>Christ" with a box-office take of $125.2 million, the greatest debut in
>>>>>>movie history by a film opening on a Wednesday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The previous record holder, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,"
>>>>>>had $124.1 million.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Freep
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee thanks for that valuable and important information. I'll be able to sleep tonight.
>>>>Hi,
>>>>Good deal for 25 million dollar investment.
>>>>
>>>Hmm, Mel Gibson: devout
>>>traditional Catholic or
>>>incredibly savvy artist
>>>and marketer?
>>
>>Bruce, your grammar's usually pretty good; why is the word "or" in the
>>middle of that sentence and why does it end with a question mark?
>
>I take it you see him as
>all those things. Fair
>enough, that's possible!
He could be all of that. I don't really think he expected the movie to break as
big as it did. I don't think anyone is that clever as to have arranged all of
this so deliberately.
I think he expected the movie to make its money back. But even the wildest
optimist wouldn't expect a movie that can't even find a distributor to be this
huge.
I know he got some backlash audience. You can't count on that.
Ron
RonSonic
>On 2 Mar 2004 08:20:34 -0800, goo...@MusicIsLove.com (Mike Cressey)
>wrote:
>
>>There were many other stories about Jesus he could have told but he
>>choice the most gruesome.
>
>There are lots of stories he could have told that would have been
>better. He could have covered what Jesus did to try to help people,
>he could have highlighted the discussion of divinity or prophet
>and caused actual productive discussion, he could have brought Jews
>and Christians together by showing their common origins and areas
>of agreement - despite late disagreements.
>
>In short, he could have done an upbeat picture to make people
>feel good. But, you forgot the key fact: He wanted to make
>money, not make the world any better.
I cannot imagine that this movie was made to make money. The movie is far too
grim and unpleasant to be a money maker, at least by any calculation ever before
used in the making of a movie.
It does cry out for a prequel in a way no other movie ever has.
Ron
Tony Novacheck
>It's not literally a snuff film of course.
>That statement was based on what Christopher Hitchens
>said what he thought of the film. And he didn't think Gibson
> was much of an "artist" with all the extreme violence depicted.
>
>I haven't seen the film - just waiting until it's shown on cable.
>But am already having my doubts about the film being religious
>in nature, especially from the ones who seem to approve
>of what is being reported as what appears as a snuff film.
>Is that better, Tony?
Now you've just taken your first steps towards saying what you mean, and
meaning what you say. Please continue this trend. >;^) Now if we can just
get you to think this clearly! ... also >;^)
Mr. Electron
"Tony Novacheck" <lostp...@aol.comdogdoo> wrote in message
> >From: "Mr. Electron" orsomeon...@zap.com
>
> >It's not literally a snuff film of course.
> >That statement was based on what Christopher Hitchens
> >said what he thought of the film. And he didn't think Gibson
> > was much of an "artist" with all the extreme violence depicted.
> >
> >I haven't seen the film - just waiting until it's shown on cable.
> >But am already having my doubts about the film being religious
> >in nature, especially from the ones who seem to approve
> >of what is being reported as what appears as a snuff film.
> >Is that better, Tony?
>
> Now you've just taken your first steps towards saying what you mean, and
> meaning what you say. Please continue this trend. >;^) Now if we can
just
> get you to think this clearly! ... also >;^)
Gues suffer I from dyslexic typing.
D.R
canonization (sp?) of the New Testament including
the book by Jesus' brother James. What many
people forget is that the New Testament (and the
OT) are collections of manuscripts by different
authors.
Sure I know how many books were left out. I wouldn't
include books that were clearly of flakey origin
or of questionable authenticity or background in
any compendium either. For example, the Apocrypha
was traditionally not considered by Jews to be
'scripture' although it was still well read. Hence
it is not included in the Old Testament of the
majority of bibles these days. Upon close examination
of these books of the Apocrypha, it is clear that
they contain easily identifiable inconsistancies.
Good call.
Do note, that the 4 gospel accounts were written
by eyewitness. To discredit these because of 'an
agenda', would be like discrediting a witness in
a court case because they are somehow related to
the accused.
> Yes, and much of it found to be a bit different
> that this nice, neat story they told you in CCD
CCD? What is that? Seriously. I have no idea what
you mean....
> How else could he make so much money or paint
> the Jews with such a horrid brush ?
Anyone who watched the movie or read the gospels
would know that Jews are *not* painted in bad light.
It was the High Priests and other organized religos
that were depicted. Infact when asked who killed
Jesus, Mel Gibson answered something along the lines
of "we all did". For goodness sake, Jesus was a jew
also.
I have posted on another part of this thread
regarding non-biblical historic accounts.
D.R.
D.R
Mr. Electron
> On 02 Mar 2004 23:59:36 GMT, lostp...@aol.comdogdoo (Tony Novacheck)
wrote:
>
> >>From: "Mr. Electron" orsomeon...@zap.com
> >
> >>It's a snuff film, Ron. And since you and all the others
> >>seemed to have enjoyed seeing such violence,
> >>that speaks volumes about your barbarism as well
> >>as *your* cruelty.
> >
> >Sorry to poke a huge hole in that theory, but a "snuff" film, by
definition,
> >portrays actual violent acts in real time and real acts ... not
recreations.
> >
> >
> >Lostpup198
>
> Add Ed to the list of people who didn't see the movie but want to
criticize.
True, I did not see the movie.
Untrue, I'm not here to criticise. I was only pointing
out some of the reactions to the film that no one had
mentioned other than the expected responses from
Evangelical Christians.
Did you see the film?
Are you a Christian, Ron?
Are you of any particular domination?
Not saying one is better than the other. If anything,
I would say there should not be any divisions in the
body of Christ. And, Christians should love their neighbor
be he secular or not. However, admittedly, it's much more
difficult when the neighbor or fellow Christian has a
snobbish exclusive agenda.
May the Great Spirit unite us all in the movie world
of graphic violence. 妞)
FRETBUZZ
Regards
"ßikeÞainter" <hea...@home.com> wrote in message
news:q1R0c.53047$wr2....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Fearless Freep" <fr...@thisdimension.com> wrote in message
> news:BcQ0c.98978$n62....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > Is that based on a true story?
> >
> > Freep
> >
>
> It was a joke, Freep. ;^}=
>
>
>
> > "ßikeÞainter" <hea...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:sUP0c.53026$W62....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "Fearless Freep" <fr...@thisdimension.com> wrote in message
> > > news:O%O0c.98627$n62....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > > > Updated figures show Mel Gibson's foreign-language "The Passion of
the
> > > > Christ" with a box-office take of $125.2 million, the greatest debut
> in
> > > > movie history by a film opening on a Wednesday.
> > > >
> > > > The previous record holder, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of
the
> > > King,"
> > > > had $124.1 million.
> > > >
> > > > Freep
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, but I'm waiting to see his next release....... ;^}=
> > > ...................................................................
> > >
> > > Actor Mel Gibson stirred controversy once more today, announcing that
> he
> > > would produce, direct and star in a major motion picture entitled
> "Lethal
> > > Rabbi".
> > >
> > > Mr. Gibson, who established himself as a producer-director-actor with
> the
> > > Oscar-winning "Braveheart", told reporters today, I'll be wearing
three
> > hats
> > > on this film, and one of them will be a yarmulke.
> > >
> > > The film, about a rogue cop/Orthodox rabbi who goes on a killing
rampage
> > in
> > > Los Angeles, has already drawn the ire of several Jewish groups who
have
> > > accused Mr. Gibson's latest cinematic foray of being anti-Semitic.
> > >
> > > Anti-defamation activists who have objected to the Gibson film
> especially
> > > take issue with the character played Mr. Gibson, Sgt. Shlomo Levenstei
n,
> > aka
> > > "Dirty Shlomo".
> > >
> > > In one scene, for example, Sgt. Levenstein uses an AK-47 assault rifle
> to
> > > dispatch a drug dealer and then delivers the line, "Mazel tov,
suckah!"
> > >
> > > Mr. Gibson took time out on the "Lethal Rabbi" set today to defend the
> > film,
> > > saying that he wrote the script only after extensive research into the
> > world
> > > of Orthodox rabbis who were also rogue cops.
> > >
> > > "This movie tells the truth about Orthodox rabbi/rogue cops in the
hopes
> > of
> > > fostering love and understanding around the world," said Mr. Gibson,
> > wearing
> > > Hasidic side curls and a shoulder holster.
> > >
> > > Mr. Gibson also denied what he called "exaggerated" reports that Sgt.
> > Shlomo
> > > goes on a nonstop killing spree in the movie.
> > >
> > > "In the film, we take great pains to show that he takes Saturday off,"
> Mr.
> > > Gibson said.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
RonSonic
wrote:
Parole from the bit bucket for ya.
>It's not literally a snuff film of course.
>That statement was based on what Christopher Hitchens
>said what he thought of the film. And he didn't think Gibson
> was much of an "artist" with all the extreme violence depicted.
Hitchens has at best a profound cynicism toward religion of all sorts and an
open antipathy toward some. Catholicism seems to run a distant second to
Fundamentalist Islam in his accounting of the worlds worst religions. He spent
decades as a devout British Marxist. Well he's still very British and still no
fan of religion
Shame you trust his movie reviews and not his opinion on the war.
>I haven't seen the film - just waiting until it's shown on cable.
>But am already having my doubts about the film being religious
>in nature, especially from the ones who seem to approve
>of what is being reported as what appears as a snuff film.
Is it religious in nature? It tells the story. You'll have to supply the rest -
the interpretation is yours. This is not some preachy little Jesus movie that
follows some Gregg Allman looking guy wandering around somberly saying only nice
stuff and patting children on the head.
The fundamental fact of Christian belief is that man is sinful and damned; Jesus
suffered and died to absolve that sin and lift that doom for those who accept
His sacrifice on their behalf.
If you believe that, this is a religious movie. If you don't it isn't. If you
do believe, then this movie demands that you ask whether this sacrifice was
worth it. Do you make it worth it? Do any of us? Worth what? Worth what this
movie shows and more that no movie could ever show.
Is it a valid movie for those who do not believe? Harder question - this movie
is about as much fun as say a really good documentary about the Scott expedition
to the South Pole. One doesn't need to be a ghoul to watch either. Even if you
don't believe, Jesus did, this is what he was prepared to endure for his faith.
No doubt some little droogy somewhere will viddy himself right smart with the
lash and making luscious flow with the rosy red juice. But then that happened
long before there was this movie didn't it. Decent people need not change what
they do, nor artists change their work for fear some deviant will find an
unintended perverse pleasure in it.
This is no snuff film, there is no more violence than in say, Gladiator, just It
all happens to mostly one Guy.
>especially from the ones who seem to approve
>of what is being reported as what appears as a snuff film.
"seem to approve of what is being reported as what appears as..."
Are you a political speech writer now. You've got too many qualifiers there to
be more than somewhat aware of the possibility that there may be a glimmer of
you actually knowing anything about this film.
Much is ugly and in the midst of that ugliness are stark displays of the true
beauty of ordinary people. Bigots will be saddened to note that all of those
people in this movie are Jewish.
Ed, go see the movie. You call yourself a Christian, go see what that cost Him.
>Is that better, Tony?
Much. As a Timepix clone you suck.
Ron
RonSonic
wrote:
>
>"RonSonic" <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:jn9a4055j02m8h93h...@4ax.com...
>> On 02 Mar 2004 23:59:36 GMT, lostp...@aol.comdogdoo (Tony Novacheck)
>wrote:
>>
>> >>From: "Mr. Electron" orsomeon...@zap.com
>> >
>> >>It's a snuff film, Ron. And since you and all the others
>> >>seemed to have enjoyed seeing such violence,
>> >>that speaks volumes about your barbarism as well
>> >>as *your* cruelty.
>> >
>> >Sorry to poke a huge hole in that theory, but a "snuff" film, by
>definition,
>> >portrays actual violent acts in real time and real acts ... not
>recreations.
>> >
>> >
>> >Lostpup198
>>
>> Add Ed to the list of people who didn't see the movie but want to
>criticize.
>
>True, I did not see the movie.
>Untrue, I'm not here to criticise. I was only pointing
>out some of the reactions to the film that no one had
>mentioned other than the expected responses from
>Evangelical Christians.
What they are saying and writing is not at all expected because this movie is
fairly well unprecedented. When's the last time there has been a major movie
that didn't just shit on every aspect of Christian belief save a few "nice"
Jesus sayings. I reject your claim that you could have expected their responses
because they have had nothing like this to respond to in your entire life.
How about Michael Medved, an Orthodox Jew who (despite seeing what he considers
flaws and who understands Aramaic) calls it the best cinematic portrayal of a
Bible story ever.
>Did you see the film?
Yes.
>Are you a Christian, Ron?
More of a fan than a worshipper.
>Are you of any particular domination?
Lapsed Catholic. Little known that's its own denomination.
>Not saying one is better than the other. If anything,
To be honest, I don't give a shit what you would say.
>I would say there should not be any divisions in the
>body of Christ. And, Christians should love their neighbor
>be he secular or not. However, admittedly, it's much more
>difficult when the neighbor or fellow Christian has a
>snobbish exclusive agenda.
Yeah, all those bastards bashfully inviting us to join them at worship. Buncha
snobs.
>May the Great Spirit unite us all in the movie world
>of graphic violence. 妞)
You may have actually come up with a clever one there.
Go see the movie, then you will really know something about the people who are
talking about it. This is a great film by any measure.
Ron
D.R
> The fundamental fact of Christian belief is that man is sinful and damned; Jesus
> suffered and died to absolve that sin and lift that doom for those who accept
> His sacrifice on their behalf.
Well said.
> This is no snuff film, there is no more violence than in say, Gladiator, just It
> all happens to mostly one Guy.
The irony it all is that I see no-one kicking up a
song and dance about 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'
which is showing at the same time in my country. This
is violence for the sake of violence, whether true
story or not.
Whereas for someone to think that Gibson's movie is
just about violence, they have missed the point
completely. What I suspect people are actually finding
offensive with the Passion of The Christ movie is the
message and realization of personal accountability.
Dana Craft
It is true - Starship Troopers was fiction.
Jeff Engelmann
"D.R" <D...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:10783027...@kyle.snap.net.nz...
(SNIP)
> Whereas for someone to think that Gibson's movie is
> just about violence, they have missed the point
> completely. What I suspect people are actually finding
> offensive with the Passion of The Christ movie is the
> message and realization of personal accountability.
Absolutely on target! Personal accountability (or lack thereof) is
fundamental to virtually all the debates that are taking place today. Look
at any devisive issue and factor this into the debate, and a very consistent
picture emerges. Few people recogize it, though.
Jeff
Jeff Engelmann
Jody Dean Dallas/Ft. Worth anchor, CBS News.
There have been tons of e-mails and forwards floating around recently
from those who have had the privilege of seeing Mel Gibson's The Passion
Of The Christ prior to its actual release. I thought I'd give you my
reaction after seeing it last week.
The screening was on the first night of "Elevate!" a weekend-long seminar
for young people at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano. There were about
2,000 people there, and the movie was shown after several speakers had
taken the podium. It started around 9:00 and finished around
11:00...about two hours in length. Frankly, I lost complete track of time
- so I can't be sure.
I want you to know that I started in broadcasting when I was 13-years-old.
I have been in the business of writing, performing, production and
broadcasting for a long time. I have been a part of movies, radio,
television, stage and other productions - so I know how things are done. I
know about soundtracks and special effects and make-up and screenplays. I
think I have seen just about every kind of movie or TV show ever made -
from extremely inspirational to extremely gory. I read a lot - and have
covered stories and scenes that still make me wince. I also have a vivid
imagination, and have the ability to picture things as they must have
happened - or to anticipate things as they will be portrayed. I have also
seen an enormous amount of footage from Gibson's film, so I thought
I knew what was coming. But there is nothing in my existence - nothing I
could have read, seen,
heard, thought or known - that could have prepared me for what I saw on
screen last night.
This is not a movie that anyone will "like". I don't think it's a movie
anyone will "love". It certainly doesn't "entertain". There isn't even the
sense that one has just watched a movie. What it is.an experience - on a
level of primary emotion that is scarcely comprehensible. Every shred of
human preconception or predisposition is utterly stripped away. No one
will eat popcorn during this film. Some may not eat for days after they've
seen it. Quite honestly, I wanted to vomit. It hits that hard.
I can see why some people are worried about how the film portrays the
Jews. They should be worried. No, it's not anti-Semitic. What it is, is
entirely shattering. There are no "winners". No one comes off looking
"good" - except Jesus. Even His own mother hesitates. As depicted, the
Jewish
leaders of Jesus' day merely do what any of us would have done - and still
do. They protected their perceived "place" - their sense of safety and
security, and the satisfaction of their own "rightness".
But everyone falters. Caiphus judges. Peter denies. Judas betrays. Simon
theCyrene balks. Mark
runs away. Pilate equivocates. The crowd mocks. The soldiers laugh.
Longinus still stabs with his pilus. The centurion still carries out his
orders. And as Jesus fixes them all with a glance, they still turn away.
The Jews, the Romans, Jesus' friends - they all fall. Everyone, except the
Principal
Figure. Heaven sheds a single, mighty tear - and as blood and water spew
from His side, the complacency of all creation is eternally shattered.
The film grabs you in the first five seconds, and never lets go. The
brutality, humiliation, and gore are almost inconceivable - and still
probably does not go far enough. The scourging alone seems to never end,
and you cringe at the sound and splatter of every blow - no matter how
steely your nerves. Even those who have known combat or prison will have
trouble, no matter their experience - because this Man was not
conscripted. He went willingly, laying down His entirety for all. It is
one thing for a soldier to die for his countrymen. It's something else
entirely to think of even a common man dying for those who hate and wish
to kill him. But this is no common man. This is the King of the Universe.
The idea that anyone could or would have gone through such punishment is
unthinkable - but this
Man was completely innocent, completely holy - and paying the price for
others. He screams as He is laid upon the cross, "Father, they don't know.
They don't know..."
What Gibson has done is to use all of his considerable skill to portray
the most dramatic moment of the most dramatic events since the dawn of
time. There is no escape. It's a punch to the gut that puts you on the
canvas, and you don't get up. You are simply confronted by the horror of
what
was done - what had to be done - and why. Throughout the entire film, I
found myself apologizing.
What you've heard about how audiences have reacted is true. There was no
sound after the film's conclusion. No noise at all. No one got up. No one
moved. The only sound one could hear was sobbing.
In all my years of public life, I have never heard anything like that. I
told many of you that Gibson had reportedly re-shot the ending to include
more "hope" through the Resurrection. That's not true. The
Resurrection scene is perhaps the shortest in the entire movie - and yet
it packs a punch that can't be quantified. It is perfect. There is no way
to negotiate the meaning out of it. It simply asks, "Now, what will you
do?"
I'll leave the details to you, in the hope that you will see the film -
but one thing above all stands out, and I have to tell you about it. It
comes from the end of Jesus' temptations in the wilderness - where the
Bible says Satan left him "until a more opportune time." I imagine Satan
never quit tempting Christ, but this film captures beyond words the most
opportune time. At every step of the way, Satan is there at Jesus' side -
imploring Him to quit, reasoning with Him to give up, and seducing Him to
surrender. For the first time, one gets a heart-stopping idea of the
sense of madness that must have enveloped Jesus - a sense of the evil that
was at His very elbow. The physical punishment is relentless - but it's
the sense of psychological torture that is most overwhelming. He should
have quit. He should have opened His mouth. He should have called 10,000
angels. No
one would have blamed Him. What we deserve is obvious.
But He couldn't do that. He wouldn't do that. He didn't do that. He
doesn't do that. It was not and
is not His character. He was obedient, all the way to the cross - and you
feel the real meaning of that phrase in a place the human heart usually
doesn't dare to go. You understand that we are called to that same level
of obedience. With Jesus' humanity so irresistibly on display, you
understand that we have no excuse. There is no place to hide.
The truth is this: Is it just a "movie"? In a way, yes. But it goes far
beyond that, in a fashion I've never felt - in any forum. We may think we
"know". We know nothing. We've gone 2,000 years - used to the idea of a
pleasant story, and a sanitized Christ. We expect the ending, because
we've heard it so many times. God forgive us. This film tears that all
away. It's as close as any of us will ever get to knowing, until we fully
know.
Paul understood. "Be urgent, in and out of season." Luke wrote that Jesus
reveals Himself in the breaking of the bread. Exactly. The Passion Of The
Christ shows that Bread being broken.
Go see this movie.
Jody Dean is theDallas/Ft. Worth anchor for CBS News.
TimePixDC
>Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2004 3:56 PM
>There is more evidence for the life of Jesus Christ
>than say that of Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great,
>etc and other historical figures that are widely
>accepted.
An utterly nonsensical statement if you count historical record and not
religious tracts. The valid historical record on Jesus of Nazareth is pretty
slim.
TimePixDC
>Date: Wed, Mar 3, 2004 6:42 AM
>>>Just read the Gospels
>>
>>I asked you to prove it, not site a religious tract of dubious historical
>>validity.
>
>It is true - Starship Troopers was fiction.
AS may be The Bible.
TimePixDC
>Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2004 4:11 PM
>The content of the movie was more realistic in the way that it depicted
>graphically how
>romans treated their prisoners/victims
>in those times.
Wrong. The Romans tied people to crosses for their crucifixtions. No nails.
TimePixDC
>Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2004 4:10 PM
>However, the Gospels are books written by men no less than(and
>often much more than) 30 years after Jesus' death, often through
>writers since few men could write in those days. Those men had
>a vested interest in the Religion they had built at that point.
And they had a vested interest in distancing themselves from the Jews that had
recently rebelled against the Roman Empire, resulting in the destruction of the
Temple in Jerusalem. Not good for survival to be lumped in with a group of
"terrorists."
TimePixDC
>From: "Fearless Freep" fr...@thisdimension.com
>How do you *know* they don't realize it?
The ones I've asked didn't.
TimePixDC
>Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2004 6:42 PM
>That's not what the Pope said.
According the the Vatican the Pope didn't say a damn thing.to
Mike Cressey
> came in the first place, to _willingly_ die for the sins of
> mankind. Excluding this fact, and chosing another story would
> have missed the point entirely.
Yes I understand that but I'm not sure I buy this aspect completely
based solely on the gospels. We don't have time to go into it here
(and I am not a scholar of the gospels) but basically when Jesus died
& the things associated with the "messiah" did not happen, his
disciples had to put a different emphasis on his death, i.e., that "he
died for our sins & that was his main mission". I'm not sure I
believe this completely.
> Anyone who actually heard Mel Gibson would know that it was not
> about the money, but personal convictions, and that it was a huge
> financial gamble as no-one would touch this project.
I agree with you here but I don't think it was a big financial gamble.
Mike
Mr. Electron
<orsomeon...@zap.com>
> wrote:
>
> Parole from the bit bucket for ya.
>
> >It's not literally a snuff film of course.
> >That statement was based on what Christopher Hitchens
> >said what he thought of the film. And he didn't think Gibson
> > was much of an "artist" with all the extreme violence depicted.
>
> Hitchens has at best a profound cynicism toward religion of all sorts and
an
> open antipathy toward some. Catholicism seems to run a distant second to
> Fundamentalist Islam in his accounting of the worlds worst religions. He
spent
> decades as a devout British Marxist. Well he's still very British and
still no
> fan of religion
>
> Shame you trust his movie reviews and not his opinion on the war.
Just because I posted his analysis of the film, does not mean I agreed with
it.
Duh. I listen and considered his view about the war because I'm not a
closed minded twit as I listened and considered what he had to say
about the film. Rev. Billy Grahm's son was also on the show and was
expressing the same approval as you and many of the folks here,
so I posted something contrary. Bid deal. It doesn't mean I agree
with either the approval or disapproval of the film.
> >I haven't seen the film - just waiting until it's shown on cable.
> >But am already having my doubts about the film being religious
> >in nature, especially from the ones who seem to approve
> >of what is being reported as what appears as a snuff film.
>
> Is it religious in nature? It tells the story. You'll have to supply the
rest -
> the interpretation is yours. This is not some preachy little Jesus movie
that
> follows some Gregg Allman looking guy wandering around somberly saying
only nice
> stuff and patting children on the head.
Yeah, I saw parts of that made for TV movie with Jesus as a surfer dude -
pathetic.
> The fundamental fact of Christian belief is that man is sinful and damned;
Jesus
> suffered and died to absolve that sin and lift that doom for those who
accept
> His sacrifice on their behalf.
We know this.
> If you believe that, this is a religious movie. If you don't it isn't. If
you
> do believe, then this movie demands that you ask whether this sacrifice
was
> worth it. Do you make it worth it? Do any of us? Worth what? Worth what
this
> movie shows and more that no movie could ever show.
Perhaps the movie needs what you stated - a prequel. There would be more
about the miracles, the teachings and compassion Jesus is known for instead
from what seems to be in the opinion of some, an overdone expression
of the graphic violence of a torture. Ever see the film "Psycho"? Since
one never saw anyone stabbing anyone in the shower scene, much was
left to the imagination of the individual which usually ends up being even
more graphic, more expressive and more effective in terrifying in the mind
of the viewer. Hence there was really no need to make it as graphic.
In the written version, one has to rely on imagination since all of the
details are not clearly defined and I already imagined the horror,
pain and suffering Jesus went through from reading long ago and
now and then without seeing Mel's version of it. It was if I was there
when it happened. That's why I know it's a true story - it's not
a matter of belief with me.
But from what I heard about the film, *nothing* is left to the
imagination of the viewer. And regarding this film as art
means someone doesn't understand what art is.
> Is it a valid movie for those who do not believe? Harder question - this
movie
> is about as much fun as say a really good documentary about the Scott
expedition
> to the South Pole. One doesn't need to be a ghoul to watch either. Even if
you
> don't believe, Jesus did, this is what he was prepared to endure for his
faith.
>
> No doubt some little droogy somewhere will viddy himself right smart with
the
> lash and making luscious flow with the rosy red juice. But then that
happened
> long before there was this movie didn't it. Decent people need not change
what
> they do, nor artists change their work for fear some deviant will find an
> unintended perverse pleasure in it.
>
> This is no snuff film, there is no more violence than in say, Gladiator,
just It
> all happens to mostly one Guy.
See above.
> >especially from the ones who seem to approve
> >of what is being reported as what appears as a snuff film.
>
> "seem to approve of what is being reported as what appears as..."
>
> Are you a political speech writer now. You've got too many qualifiers
there to
> be more than somewhat aware of the possibility that there may be a glimmer
of
> you actually knowing anything about this film.
I'm only relaying various reviews from what I've read along with
some speculation on my part. You would too if you had not seen it.
I haven't totally condemned the film. I plan on seeing it. I simply
question the sincerity of what seems to be almost an automatic
approval from a certain mindset in the population.
> Much is ugly and in the midst of that ugliness are stark displays of the
true
> beauty of ordinary people. Bigots will be saddened to note that all of
those
> people in this movie are Jewish.
Huh? I'm a bigot? Just because I'm anti-radical conservatism and have
referred
to those radical conservatives as neo-cons on occasion, that does not
make me a bigot nor is the term neo-con only defined as new-conservatives
who are jews formerly liberal.
> Ed, go see the movie. You call yourself a Christian, go see what that
cost Him.
>
> >Is that better, Tony?
>
> Much. As a Timepix clone you suck.
I'm not a clone of anyone. And you suck for making that
accusation.
j...@3inthekey.com
> >Subject: Re: "Passion" takes record from "Return of the King"
> >Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2004 2:08 PM
>
> >> >Only that Starship Troopers is fiction, and
> >> >the Passion is based on historical fact.
> >>
> >> Prove it.
> >
>
> I asked you to prove it, not site a religious tract of dubious historical
> validity.
If you look at the second sentence of my reply, you'll see I addressed
your request for proof.
Mr. Electron
I expected the response based on the clever marketing campaign of
pre-publicity
among the Christian communities, the controversy and the idea of churches
buying up all the tickets for congregations to invite any friends or family
members
who normally don't go to church to go see the film with them.
> How about Michael Medved, an Orthodox Jew who (despite seeing what he
considers
> flaws and who understands Aramaic) calls it the best cinematic portrayal
of a
> Bible story ever.
>
> >Did you see the film?
>
> Yes.
>
> >Are you a Christian, Ron?
>
> More of a fan than a worshipper.
>
> >Are you of any particular domination?
>
> Lapsed Catholic. Little known that's its own denomination.
>
> >Not saying one is better than the other. If anything,
>
> To be honest, I don't give a shit what you would say.
Then why read and reply to me, especially if you want
to be an asshole about it?
> >I would say there should not be any divisions in the
> >body of Christ. And, Christians should love their neighbor
> >be he secular or not. However, admittedly, it's much more
> >difficult when the neighbor or fellow Christian has a
> >snobbish exclusive agenda.
>
> Yeah, all those bastards bashfully inviting us to join them at worship.
Buncha
> snobs.
No, I was referring to those fascist conservative atheists and agnostics
politically motivated attempting to align themselves with Christianity in
order to
incite Christians into becoming anti-liberal, even though Jesus was the most
liberal being that ever walked this Earth.
> >May the Great Spirit unite us all in the movie world
> >of graphic violence. 妞)
>
> You may have actually come up with a clever one there.
>
> Go see the movie, then you will really know something about the people who
are
> talking about it. This is a great film by any measure.
When I go see it, I will certainly remove out of my mind any preconceived
notions of the film including your review and Christopher Hitchens' review.
>
> Ron
j...@3inthekey.com
Catholic "sunday school"
The guy's being pretty patronizing. It's unfortunate.
> > How else could he make so much money or paint
> > the Jews with such a horrid brush ?
>
> Anyone who watched the movie or read the gospels
> would know that Jews are *not* painted in bad light.
> It was the High Priests and other organized religos
> that were depicted. Infact when asked who killed
> Jesus, Mel Gibson answered something along the lines
> of "we all did". For goodness sake, Jesus was a jew
> also.
The High Priests were Jews. Jews helped kill Christ. That's the
story. Is it anti-semitic to tell the story? Perhaps. But it would
be rediculous to change this aspect of it. I guess Gibson was
supposed to have Arabs clamoring for the death of Christ? His
disciples were Jews as well. Mary was a Jew. Joseph was a Jew. This
is rediculous. If a black person claims rascism, then they're playing
"the race card", but all these claims of anti-semitism are somehow
valid?
TimePixDC
>
>>Do note, that the 4 gospel accounts were written
>>by eyewitness.
Hard;y likely as the apostles probably couldn't read or write.
D.R
"Mike Cressey" <goo...@MusicIsLove.com> wrote in message
news:e5c4ec2d.0403...@posting.google.com...
> > The point he was making, was _the_ _reason_ that Jesus Christ
> > came in the first place, to _willingly_ die for the sins of
> > mankind. Excluding this fact, and chosing another story would
> > have missed the point entirely.
> Yes I understand that but I'm not sure I buy this aspect completely
> based solely on the gospels. We don't have time to go into it here
> (and I am not a scholar of the gospels) but basically when Jesus died
> & the things associated with the "messiah" did not happen, his
> disciples had to put a different emphasis on his death, i.e., that "he
> died for our sins & that was his main mission". I'm not sure I
> believe this completely.
Many of the messianic prophecies mentioned both of his atoning
death and future reign. Many at the time believed that the
messiah on his first coming would bring them victory over the
romans. Jesus told his closest companions many times of his
laying down of his life, and they still didn't get it until
afterwards. The victory is in two parts: victory over sin and
death by his death and resurrection. And secondly, the final
victory when he comes again. Two very deep and theologically
complex subjects.
D.R
"D.R" <D...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:10782627...@kyle.snap.net.nz...
>
> "Sand Creek Mikey" <mi...@sandcreekstudio.com> wrote in message
> news:c22sft$193$1...@news.state.mn.us...
> > I find this difficult to believe.
> >
> > But I am a reasonable man, and can be convinced if you can cite this
> > evidence you speak of.
>
>
> Here are but a few quotes from some Roman Historians......
>
> Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:
>
> "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most
> exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the
> populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty
during
> the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most
> mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in
Judaea,
> the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful
from
> every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was
> first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude
> was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
> Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they
> were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames
and
> burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his
> gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with
> the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for
criminals
> who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for
it
> was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were
> being destroyed."
>
>
>
> Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:
>
> "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he
> was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became
his
> disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his
> disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them
> three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the
> messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)
>
>
>
> Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus,
who
> wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness
> that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:
>
> "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of
> the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a
> full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]
>
>
>
Fearless Freep
spokesman did confirm the quote.
Too bad.
Freep
"TimePixDC" <time...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040303100653...@mb-m27.aol.com...
RonSonic
wrote:
That's the sort of movie we already have and don't need more.
>> The fundamental fact of Christian belief is that man is sinful and damned;
>Jesus
>> suffered and died to absolve that sin and lift that doom for those who
>accept
>> His sacrifice on their behalf.
>
>We know this.
It gets lost and bears repeating. For many Jesus was a bronze age Mr Rogers and
there is more to it than that.
>> If you believe that, this is a religious movie. If you don't it isn't. If
>you
>> do believe, then this movie demands that you ask whether this sacrifice
>was
>> worth it. Do you make it worth it? Do any of us? Worth what? Worth what
>this
>> movie shows and more that no movie could ever show.
>
>Perhaps the movie needs what you stated - a prequel. There would be more
>about the miracles, the teachings and compassion Jesus is known for instead
>from what seems to be in the opinion of some, an overdone expression
>of the graphic violence of a torture. Ever see the film "Psycho"? Since
>one never saw anyone stabbing anyone in the shower scene, much was
>left to the imagination of the individual which usually ends up being even
>more graphic, more expressive and more effective in terrifying in the mind
>of the viewer. Hence there was really no need to make it as graphic.
>In the written version, one has to rely on imagination since all of the
>details are not clearly defined and I already imagined the horror,
>pain and suffering Jesus went through from reading long ago and
>now and then without seeing Mel's version of it. It was if I was there
>when it happened. That's why I know it's a true story - it's not
>a matter of belief with me.
>But from what I heard about the film, *nothing* is left to the
>imagination of the viewer. And regarding this film as art
>means someone doesn't understand what art is.
There are a lot of ways to make a movie. The point the movie makes is important.
It makes it very clearly and well.
Dude, you admit to having not seen the movie, you say you've read a lot of
negative stuff. I'm answering that false allegation before you feel the need to
suggest that some have said that they believe it is possible that ....
Trust me, if I wanted to call you a bigot it would be in far more direct
language.
>> Ed, go see the movie. You call yourself a Christian, go see what that
>cost Him.
>>
>> >Is that better, Tony?
>>
>> Much. As a Timepix clone you suck.
>
>I'm not a clone of anyone. And you suck for making that
>accusation.
Sure. Just try to stay real.
Ron
Miles O'Neal
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:27:06 -0600, "Mr. Electron"
> <orsomeon...@zap.com> wrote:
>
> Parole from the bit bucket for ya.
[Major snippage]
Ron, that was an excellent analysis and response.
-Miles, amazed at the folks who haven't seen the
movie who feel free to pontificate on it
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
D.R
D.R
I couldn't help but notice your word "probably".
It shows that you no little of what you are talking
about.
In the same manner as many PAs write letters for CEO's
some had a scribe to dictate to. Actaully, Matthew was
indeed literate, as he was a tax collector - by the very
nature of his occupation he had to be.
Sorry dude, but you will have to troll better next time.
D.R
"Miles O'Neal" <m...@rru.com> wrote in message news:pan.2004.03.04...@rru.com...
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 05:21:34 +0000, RonSonic wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:27:06 -0600, "Mr. Electron"
> > <orsomeon...@zap.com> wrote:
> >
> > Parole from the bit bucket for ya.
>
> [Major snippage]
>
> Ron, that was an excellent analysis and response.
>
> -Miles, amazed at the folks who haven't seen the
> movie who feel free to pontificate on it
Pontificate.... You gotta love that word. :-)
Slade Farney
>
> One was writing more about the stuff about the film and the other was writing
> about the movie itself. Beyond that, it is the nature of art that different
> people will see a thing differently. Were this some simple minded screed there
> would be no debate about it, or, rather the debate would be whether one agrees
> or disagrees. Instead it is a work of art and we get to argue about what it
> means. Mel Gibson as a movie maker has typically been a fairly blunt instrument,
> deftly wielded, but a blunt instrument nonetheless. Here he has done a beautiful
> job painting very real and complex characters in roles that are usually
> performed by cliche's and cardboard cutouts.
>
> That is at the core of how this movie tells its story so well and why it is not
> going to be used as an incitement. We get to know these people and we recognize
> them as real people with the range of character and personality we find in those
> around us. A bigot will not need this movie, in fact he won't like it a bit, it
> won't conform to his prejudices.
>
> Caiaphus, the high priest does not come off well, if there is a human bad guy in
> this movie it is him. He has clearly decided that Jesus must die and will simply
> see to it. It is clear he hates the Roman occupiers and if he can't be rid of
> them he will use them as the anvil on which to hammer his enemies. On his enemy
> list are those whom the Romans might prefer to have his job - Jesus is at the
> top. To my eye and probably any other modern moviegoer he reminds us more of the
> angry beards we are presently wrestling with in Iran and Iraq than any modern
> Jew. The movie is very clear that the people of Judea were decent people with
> many characters who are not followers or disciples treating the movie's Hero as
> well and honorably as circumstance allows.
>
> It could only be called anti-Semitic by someone who would protest any movie that
> portrays Jews as ordinary people with all the usual human failings, or who uses
> that word as a code for something that other Jews should hate.
>
> One would be silly to expect that any Jew would have enthusiasm for any movie
> based on the New Testament. But by the billowing plumes of black smoke rising
> from this one you'd expect there to be _some_ sort of fire beneath it. There
> isn't a child's birthday candle. If any anti-Jewish sentiment arises from this
> movie it will be from resentment that such a loving and affecting portrayal of
> the Judean people has been described in such hateful, bitter and false language.
>
> Safire (and others) seem to worry how other cultures might translate and
> interpret the movie. Sorry, that is not the artist's problem. He works for
> himself and his audience. If some other audience does not get it, so it is.
> Perhaps an Orthodox Jew would see more in this movie than most of its audience
> does since they do actually learn Aramaic to study the Talmud. The rest of us
> have nothing to go on but the actor's work, the subtitles and the inevitable
> cultural knowledge of the basic story. What we, the mainstream, see is simply
> the best, most powerful adaptation of a biblical story to the big screen ever
> made. A movie that stands on its own telling a story that has affected all of
> Western Civilization for 2,000 years. Believe or not, it is one hell of a good
> movie.
>
> Ron
Jeez, Ron, of all the commentary I've seen on this film, print
included, this essay of yours beats everything. Thanks for the time
and care you spent putting it together. I am cross-posting it because
it deserves a much wider audience.
--Slade
Mike Cressey
still had the nails in it, so they did use nails at one time.
However, the movie portrays Jesus carrying the entire cross which is
probably not true. The Romans made you carry only the cross bar (I
forgotten the offical name of this piece) for several reasons. One
the entire cross would be too heavy, plus they keep the vertical piece
in the ground to make executions easier.
Mike
RonSonic
>On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 05:21:34 +0000, RonSonic wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:27:06 -0600, "Mr. Electron"
>> <orsomeon...@zap.com> wrote:
>>
>> Parole from the bit bucket for ya.
>
>[Major snippage]
>
>Ron, that was an excellent analysis and response.
Thanks Miles. _I_ think it was a very, very good movie and for a lot of people
an important one. Perhaps what is missing is that this isn't a movie for
everyone - you need some background knowledge and probably more you need some
reason to care - otherwise it is just some guy getting the stuffing knocked out
of him for two hours.
The message will be a little different from what the guy or gal in the next seat
sees. One friend tells me that he kept thinking of one of Paul's letters where
he says something to the effect that "and He would have done all of that if only
for you alone." Others will ask themselves, how do I or even all of us deserve
_THAT_? Others will be left cold. Fine, that happens. No work of art will work
for everyone and an attempt to be universal will weaken it.
The one thing that surprises me is how well it was received by a broad Christian
audience. If I had seen a preview I would've thought that it was too Catholic
for an American Protestant audience. Instead, that audience seems to see a
faithful but unique and artistic take on a familiar story. However much the
modern American Christian may disagree with the Roman tradition it is good for
him to meet that tradition. Say what you will about Catholicism it has inspired
and sponsored a tremendous body of art over a great many years and this movie
borrows liberally and advances it into a new medium. I was not surprised to read
that the actress playing Mary prepared by studying Christian art - and for us in
the West, Christian art = Catholic. The Orthodox and Coptic works are foreign
to us and Protestants simply haven't done much. The "pieta" scene at the end
stands with any such portrayal. Michelangelo did no better.
>-Miles, amazed at the folks who haven't seen the
> movie who feel free to pontificate on it
Usually people don't talk much about a movie that simply isn't for them, so we
are spared that. For some reason even people who have no business even knowing
this one's been released feel the need to weigh in on it. Maybe they think it's
important or something.
Ron
RonSonic
Do any of us here have enough of the Talmud to provide the corraboration from
that tradition?
Ron
Mr. Electron
"Miles O'Neal" <m...@rru.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.03.04...@rru.com...
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 05:21:34 +0000, RonSonic wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:27:06 -0600, "Mr. Electron"
> > <orsomeon...@zap.com> wrote:
> >
> > Parole from the bit bucket for ya.
>
> [Major snippage]
>
> Ron, that was an excellent analysis and response.
>
> -Miles, amazed at the folks who haven't seen the
> movie who feel free to pontificate on it
Did you see the movie, Miles?
RonSonic
Thank you. We'll see what quality of argument or debate it might provoke.
Since writing this I've been made aware of some aspects of the movie to which
Jewish people might reasonably object. Apparently the Temple is remembered and
venerated and portrayal of some of its priests as self-interested, manipulative
and otherwise indulging in the temptations of power does insult that memory.
That is a different thing from being anti-Semitic or promoting antagonism toward
Jews. Still, a decent sensibility should acknowledge the discomfort caused.
Anyway, thanks for the kind words. Though I'm not sure that the crosspost is a
favor :)
Ron
Susan Cohen
> On 4 Mar 2004 05:00:38 -0800, sfa...@bigfoot.com (Slade Farney) wrote:
>
> >RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<tl59409h9jrqp2325...@4ax.com>...
>
movie
> >> based on the New Testament. But by the billowing plumes of black smoke
rising
> >> from this one you'd expect there to be _some_ sort of fire beneath it.
There
> >> isn't a child's birthday candle. If any anti-Jewish sentiment arises
from this
> >> movie it will be from resentment that such a loving and affecting
portrayal of
> >> the Judean people has been described in such hateful, bitter and false
language.
Only someone with their head firmly wedged between their back cheeks could
come up with this one.
*Xian scholars* have condemned the movie as anti-semitic.
> >>
> >> Safire (and others) seem to worry how other cultures might translate
and
> >> interpret the movie. Sorry, that is not the artist's problem.
It is if some state with incitement laws decides to try him for it.
He works for
> >> himself and his audience. If some other audience does not get it, so it
is.
> >> Perhaps an Orthodox Jew would see more in this movie than most of its
audience
> >> does since they do actually learn Aramaic to study the Talmud.
Yes, such Jews will hear the completely false line about Jews blaming not
only themselves, but their children for Jesus' death.
This line has never made any sense from any possibly factual angle.
The rest of us
> >> have nothing to go on but the actor's work, the subtitles and the
inevitable
> >> cultural knowledge of the basic story. What we, the mainstream, see is
simply
> >> the best, most powerful adaptation of a biblical story to the big
screen ever
> >> made.
In the opinion of people who really like blood & guts.
The overwhelming number of Xian religious people who dislike this movie is
proof positive that it's not "the best" ever made.
A movie that stands on its own telling a story that has affected all of
> >> Western Civilization for 2,000 years. Believe or not, it is one hell of
a good
> >> movie.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >
> >Jeez, Ron, of all the commentary I've seen on this film, print
> >included, this essay of yours beats everything. Thanks for the time
> >and care you spent putting it together. I am cross-posting it because
> >it deserves a much wider audience.
Definitely a troll.
>
> Thank you. We'll see what quality of argument or debate it might provoke.
>
> Since writing this I've been made aware of some aspects of the movie to
which
> Jewish people might reasonably object. Apparently the Temple is remembered
and
> venerated and portrayal of some of its priests as self-interested,
manipulative
> and otherwise indulging in the temptations of power does insult that
memory.
> That is a different thing from being anti-Semitic or promoting antagonism
toward
> Jews. Still, a decent sensibility should acknowledge the discomfort
caused.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the kind words. Though I'm not sure that the crosspost
is a
> favor :)
No,it wasn;t.
Certainly not to scj.
Susan
D.R
"Mike Cressey" <goo...@MusicIsLove.com> wrote in message
Either way this splitting of hairs missed the point entirely.
Whether it was a cross or crossbar isn't the main focus of the
movie. With historical debate over this, a decision had to made
either way... Mel when with the cross, but notice the two other
prisoners only carried crossbars.
D.R
I *personally* I'm not clued up on the Talmud. But would guess not.
My point is, that there are non biblical historical references to
parts of Jesus life, death and ressurection. The above was just a
small snippet. Perhaps back in 221 they had more of the Talmud than
we do these days. Anyway, these snippets are taken prior to the
Roman Empire's involuvement with the church.
RonSonic
wrote:
>
>"Miles O'Neal" <m...@rru.com> wrote in message
>news:pan.2004.03.04...@rru.com...
>> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 05:21:34 +0000, RonSonic wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:27:06 -0600, "Mr. Electron"
>> > <orsomeon...@zap.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Parole from the bit bucket for ya.
>>
>> [Major snippage]
>>
>> Ron, that was an excellent analysis and response.
>>
>> -Miles, amazed at the folks who haven't seen the
>> movie who feel free to pontificate on it
>
>Did you see the movie, Miles?
Gonna ask him his religion next?
Ron
RonSonic
Not a big Orthodox contingent here I guess.
>My point is, that there are non biblical historical references to
>parts of Jesus life, death and ressurection. The above was just a
>small snippet. Perhaps back in 221 they had more of the Talmud than
>we do these days. Anyway, these snippets are taken prior to the
>Roman Empire's involuvement with the church.
Oh, I'm not questioning these at all. Just that I know Jesus got mentioned in
Jewish writings as well.
Ron
Mr. Electron
No, I was going to ask him where he thinks the center of the universe is.
So why should you care?
>
> Ron
>
RonSonic
>
>"RonSonic" <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:qske40dm688arpv22...@4ax.com...
>> On 4 Mar 2004 05:00:38 -0800, sfa...@bigfoot.com (Slade Farney) wrote:
>>
>> >RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:<tl59409h9jrqp2325...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> >> One would be silly to expect that any Jew would have enthusiasm for any
>movie
>> >> based on the New Testament. But by the billowing plumes of black smoke
>rising
>> >> from this one you'd expect there to be _some_ sort of fire beneath it.
>There
>> >> isn't a child's birthday candle. If any anti-Jewish sentiment arises
>from this
>> >> movie it will be from resentment that such a loving and affecting
>portrayal of
>> >> the Judean people has been described in such hateful, bitter and false
>language.
>
>Only someone with their head firmly wedged between their back cheeks could
>come up with this one.
>*Xian scholars* have condemned the movie as anti-semitic.
I have no idea what a "Xian" is or what sort of scholar would study such a
thing. If you are simply trying to save yourself the labor of typing five
letters, I am sure you could have saved far more letters than that. If that
particular sequence of letters bothers you so much that you cannot bear to type
them I'll not wonder why you are so quick to allege religious intolerance.
>> >> Safire (and others) seem to worry how other cultures might translate and
>> >> interpret the movie. Sorry, that is not the artist's problem.
>
>It is if some state with incitement laws decides to try him for it.
What a charming way of promoting interdenominational harmony, threats of legal
action.
> He works for
>> >> himself and his audience. If some other audience does not get it, so it
>is.
>> >> Perhaps an Orthodox Jew would see more in this movie than most of its
>audience
>> >> does since they do actually learn Aramaic to study the Talmud.
>
>Yes, such Jews will hear the completely false line about Jews blaming not
>only themselves, but their children for Jesus' death.
>This line has never made any sense from any possibly factual angle.
It makes sense in the context of persuading Pilate that his hands are indeed
clean of the matter. Beyond that, well books could be written and have been. I
am not the one to address any of that beyond making the point that Jesus existed
for the purpose of being sacrificed and that he died for the sins of his
believers. The movie is piercingly clear on that point, that his death was
necessary. No blame attaches for fulfilling a sacrifice. No doubt there is some
mouth-breather out there who doesn't get that point - such a goon is our enemy,
too.
In any case, the line does appear in the New Testament and we certainly do not
want to suggest that religious texts are subject to editting by others for
content.
> The rest of us
>> >> have nothing to go on but the actor's work, the subtitles and the
>inevitable
>> >> cultural knowledge of the basic story. What we, the mainstream, see is
>simply
>> >> the best, most powerful adaptation of a biblical story to the big
>screen ever
>> >> made.
>
>In the opinion of people who really like blood & guts.
>The overwhelming number of Xian religious people who dislike this movie is
>proof positive that it's not "the best" ever made.
Some number of people will dislike any movie, wanna hear how badly I despised
"Pretty Woman." It certainly isn't a movie for everyone, that's for sure. About
that "Xian" thing again. If you are on the verge of CTS or some other RMI there
are so many other ways to save characters in your typing.
>A movie that stands on its own telling a story that has affected all of
>> >> Western Civilization for 2,000 years. Believe or not, it is one hell of
>a good
>> >> movie.
>> >>
>> >> Ron
>> >
>> >Jeez, Ron, of all the commentary I've seen on this film, print
>> >included, this essay of yours beats everything. Thanks for the time
>> >and care you spent putting it together. I am cross-posting it because
>> >it deserves a much wider audience.
>
>Definitely a troll.
Yeah, he probably is.
>> Thank you. We'll see what quality of argument or debate it might provoke.
>>
>> Since writing this I've been made aware of some aspects of the movie to
>which
>> Jewish people might reasonably object. Apparently the Temple is remembered
>and
>> venerated and portrayal of some of its priests as self-interested,
>manipulative
>> and otherwise indulging in the temptations of power does insult that
>memory.
>> That is a different thing from being anti-Semitic or promoting antagonism
>toward
>> Jews. Still, a decent sensibility should acknowledge the discomfort
>caused.
>>
>> Anyway, thanks for the kind words. Though I'm not sure that the crosspost
>is a favor :)
>
>No,it wasn;t.
>Certainly not to scj.
Perhaps not, nonetheless I don't mind having your opinion as a result. Be well.
Ron