The Passion Continued
Samuel L. Rusk
I finally saw this film yesterday. I would like to comment. As a disclaimer,
I will say that my Gospel courses and Biblical History are both several
years old. I'll be working off the top of my head, as does pretty much
everyone else.... ;-)
1. Gibson has claimed he was trying to make an historically accurate
portrayal of the passion. I would like to know what he believes to be
accurate. To the best of my recollection, Satan does not appear at
Gethsemane in any of the four gospels. That reference is to the Gospel of
Mary of Magdala - a non-canonical work included in the apocrypha. I find
this gospel in the apocryphal section of my 1942 Catholic Bible, but not in
my 1970 (Post VII) version.
If Gibson is relying on the Gospel Of Mary, he does not address that Yeshua
gave the Church to her, not Peter. In fact, he indicates that Yeshua
preferred Peter.
Other minor historical nitpicks: The long sword carried by some of the roman
soldiers dates back to the early Republican period. While possible, how
likely is it that a Julio-Claudian legionnaire would be carrying a 300 year
old antique sword? And what's up with those purple pantaloons?
And, finally, where does the reference to Mrs. Pilate come from? Is it some
throwaway line from Josephus? Many of the links and reviews here claim
Pilate was a cruel ruler. Only in Josephus' "History of the Jews" do I find
any such reference. Is there another source?
2. The big question is about anti-semitism. Is this film anti-semitic? Some
say yes, others no. Christopher Hitchens (thanks for the link, Howard)
suggests a modernistic neo-fascism. In the film, the Jews are grotesque,
the Romans cruel. I would like to suggest a third interpretation.
The Pharisees, as represented by Caiphas, screaming for the crucifixion of
Yeshua, were the party of the lower classes of jewish society. The
Sadducees, proponents of hellenization (and disenfranchised as a result of
the Maccabean Revolt in the First Temple Period), are the party of the
elites, and not depicted in the film. It is the Phariseean mob which demands
the martyrdom of Yeshua, and is portrayed in an unflattering way.
Among the Romans depicted, Pilate, Mrs Pilate and Abendaras are symathetic
to Yeshua, and, again, represent the upper classes. The Roman soldiers who
chastise Yeshua, and some of whom find redemption later in the film,
represent the lower classes.
Could this film then be viewed as representative of class warfare, not
anti-semitism? When the Phariseeans saw that Yeshua would not protect them
in the physical plane, would they not become enraged? And wouldn't the
Pharisees of necessity need to reinforce their power base? Would not the
Sadduceans be disengaged from the debate?
The shot of the devil-child went right past me. I have no idea what Gibson
was even trying to say, let alone what he did say. I suspect it was virulent
anti-semitism.
3. My last theological point: Isn't the Passion allegorical? Yes, it
happened, and Gibson's portrayal may be fairly accurate (most historians
agree Yeshua was crucified not a Latin cross, but an hellenic one), but
where in this film is the meaning of that sacrifice to be derived? It is not
present. Did Yeshua die for the sins of mankind, as claimed? If so, where
does that appear in the film?
4. As a film, I loved the photography. Caleb Deschanel is a master, and this
would be the film's only Oscar hope.Gibson's symbolism was overblown - after
all, how many times can Yeshua look pleadingly skyward? How many shots of
light through the clouds do we need before we fall to the ground
unconscious? Was the violence overdone? I've seen much worse, both
personally and on film. The characters are not differentiated, the story is
impossible to follow for those that don't know it. There is NO script, per
se. The flashbacks relied heavily on the Gospel of John, but their relevance
to the narrative was tenuous.
In summation: As a film, it is poor (but beautifully photographed). As
theology, it is suspect. As history, it's fairly accurate, but takes
liberties. As entertainment, you'd do better with a bowl of ice cream.
Dr Sam
Jim Short
"Samuel L. Rusk" wrote:
> To follow on this thread, since it seems many of us here are interested:
<snip>
yeah, what he said.
Lucy Pfeffa
<snip>
yeah, what he said. <<
..especially about the bowl of ice cream.
-- Lucy
Samuel L. Rusk
"Jim Short" <thethinman36...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:404CBB36...@yahoo.com...
disappeared from my server. Yes, many here were interested.
I look on this group as a sort of family - I'm sorry if you don't. We have a
Family album in the Yahoo group. We have a shared interest in Mr. Zevon's
music, and from that we can build on other topics. I have many friends here,
both public and private.I'm sure you do as well.
I'm sorry you felt the need to be sarcastic about the post. I feel there are
more important things in life than the ephemeral lyrics of popular music and
I occasionally post to such. If you're not interested in the discussion,
fine. You can stay out. If you have something to contribute, please do. You
are family and we respect your viewpoint.
Sam
Dr. Barbara Horwitz
Yeah, what SHE said.
--------
Barbara
Lucy Pfeffa
I thought Jim was agreeing.
-- Lucy, still agreeing about the ice cream
Samuel L. Rusk
"Lucy Pfeffa" <lpf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040308151242...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> >> I'm sorry you felt the need to be sarcastic about the post. <<
>
> I thought Jim was agreeing.
>
> -- Lucy, still agreeing about the ice cream
I didn't. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. In the meantime, maybe we can argue
over a typo in a lyric sheet.
Back to the ice cream....
Sam
sfw
> I thought Jim was agreeing.
So did I.
> -- Lucy, still agreeing about the ice cream
Ice cream? I like ice cream. I went to the store the other day and
heroically resisted buying multiple flavors of ice cream, but I did come
home with a thing of french vanilla and a jar of hot fudge sauce.
Sarah
Dr. Barbara Horwitz
wanted others to see.
Mark Englund posted a very interesting article to Howard and to me last
night.
We've discussed it a little since.
I think there's a lot that's interesting to many people on this list
that is extended into private correspondence that never 'makes' the list
for reasons or either personal reluctance to appear to be going on
endlessly on an OT topic or for whatever reasons of 'dead horse beating'
they may perceive, or just because they want to focus some very
specific thoughts at a few folks they think might have specific
observations.
I think the 'typo comments' come up here a lot because they're generic
and almost autoreflex. But that's just MHO, nothing beyond.
I know that Lucy and I occasionally extend topics raised on this group
into our private correspondence......not for exclusionary reasons,
just because at that moment, in that instance, one or both of us have
decided that maybe enough's enough.
NOT saying that's the case here, just offering alternatives to the
bubbleheaded or sarcastic glibness interpretation that's also a possible
reading of some of what's written.
--------
Barbara
Dr. Barbara Horwitz
I am particularly fond, in some of its manifestations, Vanilla
chocolate, Mudslide, etc., and EACH PERSON has told me "This ice
cream coffee flavor is TOO STRONG!", and EACH PERSON has refused to
return it to me when asked and/or offered a replacement brand, and each
one has finished it to the last particle.
Can anyone top this for irrelevance?
Regard it as a challenge.
--------
Barbara
Jim Short
with my agreeing with him, so be it.
Samuel L. Rusk
> I was indeed agreeing, but hey, if the esteemed Mr. Rusk takes issue
> with my agreeing with him, so be it.
How, pray tell, did your post indicate agreement, and why didn't you see fit
to reply to me if I was so egregiously wrong?
Sam
ESmyth2727
To be a Desciple means to try to be disciplined like the person that we are a
desciple of...I pray the Roasary often. There are 4 parts of the Rosary.
1st...the Joyful Mysteries..(.the early life of Christ.....THE MYSTERIES OF
LIIGHT.t (the new mysteries just given to us by the Vicar of Christ, John Paul
II, and they are the life of Christ before the Passion) THE SORROWFUL
MYSTERIES (The passion and death of Christ)...THE GLORIOUS MYSTERIES. (the
resurection etc...).I don't know how factual the movie is...and it really
doesn't matter...but we, as Catholic Christians and other loving Christians as
well, have meditated on and loved Christ since His Life began...Not to mention
the fact than many early Christians died horrible deaths for Him....This movie
helps people to visualize, when mediatating,.on the suffering that Christ
endured to redeem us...take it for what it is...it doesn't matter how factual
it is...what matters is the fact that Christ was Crusified for us and our
sinful nature...
Edna
Howard Roseman
the thread.
2) Here are a couple of links I sent to Mark this morning, not quite as
outspoken as Hitchens's but slams nonetheless.
http://newyorker.com/critics/cinema/?040301crci_cinema
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4338528/
3) It's interesting to note that the movie has often polarized viewers along
political lines. Many Republican and religious right types love it, while
those leaning the other way tend to hate it (of course, there are
exceptions). Meanwhile, it's raking in the cash, which demonstrates the
value of a good controversy. Aside from the fact that I don't believe it's a
movie either children or adults should see, I'm cool with it.
"Samuel L. Rusk" <slr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9b73c.86649$ko6.439826@attbi_s02...
Samuel L. Rusk
Sam
Jim Short
Samuel L. Rusk wrote:
> Jim, I sincerely apologize for misinterpreting your remarks.
>
> Sam
No sweat, Sam. Keyboards don't have tone of voice, facial expression or
body language (well, except mine gives me the finger sometimes). Hard to
tell sometimes, especially with me, when one is being serious, flippant,
sarcastic, caustic or whatever.
FWIW, I really did think you wrote a well-reasoned, insightful piece
that made me think. I just wasn't in the mood to type as much as you
did: hence, "What he said."
jim
Lumpenguy
Here is Rabbi Lerner's analysis of the Mel Gibson movie and the
issues is presents. I think it is very well reasoned, and, most of all,
useful for everyone who is interested in the subject of helping in the
struggle to end anti-Semitism and turning evil around to uplift humanity.
.news.prodigy.com...
Doug
Samuel L. Rusk
"Jim Short" <jims...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:k%83c.22158$gP5....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
This isn't the first time I've made an ass of myself by misreading comments
on this group. Dear Lord, please let it be the last.
The one thing I was really hoping to start a debate on was the notion of
class warfare. Any comments?
Dr Sam, Ass
Jim Short
> This isn't the first time I've made an ass of myself by misreading comments
> on this group. Dear Lord, please let it be the last.
>
> The one thing I was really hoping to start a debate on was the notion of
> class warfare. Any comments?
>
> Dr Sam, Ass
If that's the biggest ass you ever make of yourself then you are miles ahead of
me.
As for class warfare, you mean vis-a-vis the relative reactions to the film as
relates to socioeconomic level?
jim
so big an ass sometimes he becomes the whole horse
Howard Roseman
knowledgeable about the Bible and the history of that time. The New Yorker
went out and found such a person. Prof. Pagels's points about Gibson's
distorting of the Gospels have already been cited several times by many of
the film's reviewers. This movie may have been therapeutic for Mel, but it's
both bad history and bad religion. And, as I've maintained all along, it's
overtly anti-Semitic ("The more benign Pilate appears in the movie, the more
malignant the Jews are.").
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?040308ta_talk_remnick
GROVES OF ACADEME
PASSIONS, PAST AND PRESENT
by David Remnick
Issue of 2004-03-08
Posted 2004-03-01
Last week, while the critics, the clergy, and the professional
opinion-providers were caught up in the opening, on Ash Wednesday, of “The
Passion of the Christ,” it seemed a good idea to ask Elaine Pagels, a
renowned historian of the early Christian period, to see the film and offer
her reaction. Scholarship on the quick, admittedly. Professor Pagels, who
teaches at Princeton and is the author of “The Gnostic Gospels” and “The
Origin of Satan,” seemed hesitant at first. But one evening she viewed “The
Passion” with some friends, and afterward she called to say that she was,
well, disturbed. And not just because of the unremitting and brutal flaying
of Christ, “though my friends said that anyone who had really endured that
kind of torture would have been dead a lot earlier in the movie.”
Pagels is both a scholar and, in her way, a practicing Christian. Usually,
she is measured, soft-spoken, but there was the slightest tone of agitation
in her voice: “It’s important to remember that this is Lent, and meditations
on the Passion of Christ are an important part of the cultural
interpretation of human suffering. There’s a context for the movie in the
history of art. When Christians read the Gospels as historical acts, they
will say what Mel Gibson says: that this is the truth, this is our faith.
But the important thing is that this film ignores the spin the gospel
writers were pressured to put on their works, the distortions of facts they
had to execute. Mel Gibson has no interest whatsoever in that.”
Pagels explained that the four gospel writers of the New Testament probably
wrote between 70 and 100 A.D. These were the years following the Roman
defeat of the Jews, which left the Temple and the center of Jerusalem in
ruins. Acts of sedition by the Jews against their conquerors were met with
swift execution. As a result, Pagels said, the Gospels, which were intended
not as history but as preaching, as religious propaganda to win followers
for the teachings of Christ, portrayed the conflict of the Passion as one
between Jesus and the Jewish people, led by Caiaphas. And, though it was the
Roman occupiers, under Pontius Pilate, who possessed ultimate political and
judicial power in Judea, they are described in the Gospels—and, more
starkly, in Gibson’s film--as relatively benign.
“Our first informed comment on Pilate comes from Philo of Alexandria, a
wealthy, influential Jewish citizen who was part of a delegation sent to
Rome to negotiate with the emperor,” Pagels said. “The delegation saw the
Emperor Caligula in the year 40, seven to ten years after Jesus’ death, and
Philo writes that Pilate was stubborn and cruel and routinely ordered
executions without trial. The other great historian of the period is
Josephus, who wrote the history of the war between the Romans and the Jews.
He tells us many episodes about Pilate that also go against what the Gospels
tell us—that he robbed the public treasury, that he deliberately incited the
Jerusalemites. Josephus tells us that when people rioted in protest Pilate
sent his soldiers to beat and kill them. So he was far from the man depicted
in the Gospels.
“Mel Gibson denies any anti-Semitism, and I can’t speak to his motives,”
Pagels went on, “but there are narrative devices that are clear. The more
benign Pilate appears in the movie, the more malignant the Jews are. To
deflect responsibility from the Romans for arresting and executing Christ,
which Gibson takes from the Gospels and makes even more extreme, is contrary
to everything we understand about history. It is implausible that the Jews
could be responsible and Pilate a benign governor. There are many examples
in the film of a preposterous dialectic: the bad Jews and the good Romans.
When the Temple police arrest Jesus, Mary Magdalene turns to the Romans as
if they were the policemen on the block, benign protectors of the public
order. But the very idea of a Jewish woman turning to Roman soldiers for
help is ridiculous.”
Unlike many of the critics, Pagels was hesitant about analyzing what effect
“The Passion of the Christ” would have on its audiences. But her tone was
one of regret.
Pagels pointed out that the history of western art is rife with
representations of the Passion that avoid divisive sentiment. “In the ‘St.
Matthew Passion,’” she said, “Bach was very aware of the problem of arousing
anti-Semitic feelings and he wanted deliberately to avoid that. So at the
moment when there is the cry to crucify Christ, the call comes not from an
identifiable group of Jews but from all, from the entire chorus. Bach
demonstrated what Gibson claims that he wanted to show, the inclination of
human beings, universally, to do violence.” There were other artists,
too—from Palestrina to Bill Viola--who depicted the Passion in a similar
spirit.
In the end, she said, “Gibson’s movie is no more subtle than ‘The Lord of
the Rings.’ There is the side of good and the side of evil.”
Lexi1997
knowledgeable about the Bible and the history of that time.<
I disagree. The movie is not being offered as "Jesus: His True Story," but as
one particular take on a story that's been told many times.
I haven't seen it and have no intention of seeing it. I don't know how much is
true or not. But I know that filmmakers present their "vision" of a storyline.
Mel Gibson did not film a documentary. From the bits and pieces I've read, he
invested his own money to create a film with his take on the story. He may
claim his story is the most literal one of the Bible, but which Bible?
The media took the story and ran with it, framing it as a career-ending gamble
Gibson was taking. I fault the media more than I fault Mel.
But I don't think it's a fair criticism to fault the movie on a historical
basis. Mel was personally driven to create this movie. Good, bad or
indifferent, people are watching it. He succeeded in his goal. Not many
people can say that.
peace.. and all good things off-topic!
Howard Roseman
this week and the wireless bridge I'm using to access the Net may have
malfunctioned since I don't see the response today. So I'll try again.
If it actually did appear and I'm just not seeing it in Google Groups,
please jump ahead. Or you can read it, since it's quite different from
yesterday's.
> > (Howard) What this controversy needs is an analysis from someone who is actually
> knowledgeable about the Bible and the history of that time.<
>
> (Lexi) I disagree. The movie is not being offered as "Jesus: His True Story," but as
> one particular take on a story that's been told many times.
>
Your use of the word "story" is instructive. A story is fiction. Jesus
lived. The Christian religion is based on historical personages but
the events in question happened so long ago that we're left with many
interpretations of the reality. But I'm uncomfortable with "takes"
that significantly alter the truth as best we know it. My major point
about this movie, which I'll repeat, is that Gibson departed from all
historical accounts by portraying Pontius Pilate as a caring and
conflicted individual. Why would he do that? A logical inference is
that he did it to make the Jewish clerics, led by Caiaphas, look much
worse. And the result of that "take" is to reinforce the notion, long
officially revoked by the Catholic Church, that "the Jews killed
Christ". Many people continue to accept this as absolute truth. When
we moved to Vancouver in 2000, we received a Christmas card from some
squash friends of ours from Edmonton, born-again Christians both. In
the card, which I thought was quite inappropriate, there was an
exposition about the Christain religion that contained the phrase "The
Jews killed Christ", presented as absolute fact. I wrote them back
about this, and we thrashed it out, but it raises an interesting
point. According to the religion, Christ had to die on behalf of all
mankind. The Romans put him to death. And yet over the centuries many
acts of aggression have been performed against the jewish people using
the "Christ-killer" rationale. Isn't this a paradox? If Christ had to
die, why are we persecuting his supposed killers? But Mel obviously
believes much of this stuff. His father Hutton has suggested that
there was no Holocaust, but rather that these European Jews ended up
just leaving town and populating Brooklyn and the Bronx. This is
ignorance on an astounding scale. Mel's response to Diane Sawyer? Not
one word of disavowal, just "He's my father, man. Don't mess with that
relationship." I also loved my father, but I had no qualms about
stating openly that he could be (and often was) a drunk and a bully in
his younger days. On those rare occasions that he made an ignorant
statement, I called him on it, and vice versa. Loving your parents
does not mean accepting unconditionally everything they say and do.
> I haven't seen it and have no intention of seeing it. I don't know how much
is
> true or not. But I know that filmmakers present their "vision" of a storyline.
> Mel Gibson did not film a documentary. From the bits and pieces I've read, he
> invested his own money to create a film with his take on the story. He may
> claim his story is the most literal one of the Bible, but which Bible?
> The media took the story and ran with it, framing it as a career-ending gamble
> Gibson was taking. I fault the media more than I fault Mel.
>
Go see The Last Temptation of Christ. Scorcese's film had a "vision".
Gibson is no Scorcese. He has a few little devils floating around, but
the vision is in short supply. Also largely missing is what Christ
stood for, which is love. I've always felt that you don't need much
more to understand Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount. The
person who wrote those words was enlightened, no question. The fact
that he was killed and had to suffer the way he did is horrible, but
that forms the crux of the religion. But I would hope that followers
of the faith would focus on the spiritual message. Gibson decides
instead to hone in on the cruelty and suffering. He has made a movie
about torture, and his "vision" is to display, in grisly slo-mo, about
5-10 times the amount of abuse that any human being could reasonably
expect to endure without dying. Why does he do this? I can reasonably
conclude that part of his motivation (not all) is to once again cast
blame on the perpetrators, which are for him the Jews. According to
him, Pilate wants no part of this, and the Romans who carry it out are
just slugs, but it's pretty clear whom he thinks the villains are.
When a Jewish group asked him early on to remove the offending phrase
that both fingered and disparaged the Jews, Gibson deviously removed
the subtitle but kept the actual Aramaic dialogue in (another device
to confer a sense of reality, not "story", on the film). He's on
record as disagreeing vociferously with the Vatican council that
decreed that the Jews should NOT be blamed for the death of Christ.
When Frank Rich, a Jew, panned the movie in the New York Times, Gibson
responded, "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. ...
I want to kill his dog." (Rich responded, through a Times spokeswoman,
"I don't have a dog."). This Gibsonian venom, decidedly un-Christian,
speaks more about the man's true character than the movie itself.
> But I don't think it's a fair criticism to fault the movie on a historical
> basis. Mel was personally driven to create this movie. Good, bad or
> indifferent, people are watching it. He succeeded in his goal. Not many
> people can say that.
>
People are watching it because Mel's a handsome and dynamic and
successful movie star. Many of his prior movies have also been filled
with gratuitous violence. Certainly, "he succeeded in his goal", but
so do the TV networks when they air drek like Fear Factor and Average
Joe. The fact that he "was personally driven to create this movie"
lends the result no greater or lesser credence. The movie seems to be
about violence and hate, with the former bound to engender the latter
in the minds of some adherents, especially when the film gets broader
exposure overseas. I fear the impact it may make.
> peace.. and all good things off-topic!
In my first thread on the movie, I mentioned the large cross Warren
wore around his neck. This was the religion he felt closest to, so IMO
it's not off-topic.
But peace - indeed.
Judy M
> And, finally, where does the reference to Mrs. Pilate come from? Is it
some
> throwaway line from Josephus? Many of the links and reviews here claim
> Pilate was a cruel ruler. Only in Josephus' "History of the Jews" do I
find
> any such reference. Is there another source?
>
>
Matthew 27:19 (King James version) reads, *When he (Pilate) was set down on
the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do
with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream
because of him. *
Also, Charlotte Bronte wrote a rather lengthy poem re said situation, which
Gibson may have made part of his scenario. It's at
http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/2878/ if you want to read it.
That little NT blurb has triggered much speculation. If you google
*pilate's wife's dream* there are a lot of hits.
Judy M.
Dr. Barbara Horwitz
from watching Jesus get hacked up for two hours a la the last five
minutes of "Braveheart". A Jewish friend and I were talking about
this the other night. She asked about the difference.....by the way,
I'd loaned her my tape of Scorcese's "Last Temptation of Christ" largely
because she's such a fan of Willem Dafoe, about whom I concur with her
as strongly as I concur with WZevon about Scorcese. Irrelevant addon.
I tried an oversimplification, which was in essence that Christians
believe that IF there was no Crucifixion, there could have been no
Resurrection, and thus, the Christian belief is shot. Salvation by
grace and giving one's heart to Jesus, and believing in His
Resurrection powers.
He resurrects several people according to the Bible in his own
'lifetime', the Roman Centurion's daughter and of course Lazarus.
And is himself Resurrected. For this, He has to die. Son of
Man......"Father, let this cup pass from me". Son of God. The
perfect translator, an Episcopal Bishop said to me recently. He felt
Moses was God's first 'translator', an imperfect one, and so, came
Jesus.
I pointed out that the Crucifixion was necessary to the Resurrection
which is at the heart of the Christian faith, with the giving of one's
salvation over to Jesus' grace. Two hours of gore was irrelevant to
'that' story, which is what I thought the movie, and the Passion of
Christ, was about.
But I am no theologian and no moviegoer.
Nor a believer in whether you have to learn to recite a Rosary or the
rote answers to a seventy question Catechism to reach God. But then,
I'm not a Catholic. Some Christians think the Catholics are an eight
hundred million person cult, as they worship Mary, which
Fundamentalists call idolatry.
But I sure know gore when I see it. Whether gore for its own sake,
gore to draw a moviegoing public that slurps gore with a straw, or
gore to illustrate Gibson's vision, I can't begin to guess.
--------
Barbara
Dr. Barbara Horwitz
Christ from Gethsemane to the Cross, is what this movie was about,
and not what the Christian religion believes in, and that this movie
was about the Passion, and not an abbreviated lesson in Christianity.
I started down one track and ended on another, and straddled the
point, and so, missed it.
Sorry. It's like Howard says, I'm too wordy. I'm grateful for
what he *doesn't* say, which is that I get sidetracked also.
Of course, the Scorcese movie was based on the novel by the same name,
"The Last Temptation of Christ", a GREAT read, but it doesn't pretend
it's the Bible, as it's hardly in the scriptures that Jesus slept with
Barbara Hershey either.
--------
Barbara
ESmyth2727
Church has long been familiar with:That of so-called "private revelations." A
private revelation is not binding for the faith of Christians, but its value is
to be measured by its capacity to instruct and inflame souls, spurring them to
love God more and apply divine teachings to their everyday lives.
In the confidence---and that conviction---Gibson's work was inspired by
"private revelations", and he offers it for the spiritual nourishment of the
masses.
Dr. Barbara Horwitz
Jewish study that the orthodox Patriarchs even unto WWII often spent
their lives studying? I don't mean is the insight or information the
same, I mean the concept.
I know that in Elie Weisel's brilliant book, "Night", a short fast
read for anyone who cares to spend a few hours with an unforgettable
book, the study of the Kabbalah among the most devout and scholarly
Jewish Patriarchs while women worked for the family's support was not
unusual.
The Kabbalah was not open to all but was supposed to reveal mysteries
and insights about the faith that others might not have from a 'simple
study of the Torah,' or a reading of the Old Testament.
I don't know anything about this; I'm just asking those who know more
than I.
It was also classed as 'mystical literature' and gave 'private
revelations' so I'm referring to that post here.
--------
Barbara
Samuel L. Rusk
"Judy M" <ajmi...@mounet.com> wrote in message
news:105du8k...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Samuel L. Rusk" <slr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:qC23c.143078$4o.182024@attbi_s52...
> > And, finally, where does the reference to Mrs. Pilate come from? Is it
> some
> > throwaway line from Josephus? Many of the links and reviews here claim
> > Pilate was a cruel ruler. Only in Josephus' "History of the Jews" do I
> find
> > any such reference. Is there another source?
> >
> >
>
> Matthew 27:19 (King James version) reads, *When he (Pilate) was set down
on
> the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do
> with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream
> because of him. *
>
Thank you, Judy. As I said, it's been many years since I was in seminary,
and even when there I was much more interested in what got left out of the
bible than what was put in. For that matter, I probably know more about
Hinduism than I do about the Four Gospels. Comparative religion fascinates
me.... My copy of Cruden's Concordance doesn't link "Pilate" and "wife."
There is, apparently from news sources, a reference prior to Josephus' about
Pilate. This was mentioned in a newspaper which my dear sweet Viki threw out
before I could copy the reference. I can't find it online. It referenced a
meeting with a Jewish delegation and Nero. Any ideas?
Dr Sam
Howard Roseman
> Church has long been familiar with:That of so-called "private revelations." A
> private revelation is not binding for the faith of Christians, but its value is
> to be measured by its capacity to instruct and inflame souls, spurring them to
> love God more and apply divine teachings to their everyday lives.
I subscribe to that notion.
> In the confidence---and that conviction---Gibson's work was inspired by
> "private revelations", and he offers it for the spiritual nourishment of the
> masses.
I hope I'm exempt from the "masses" group, and that all of you are
also. To be one of them is usually to be living a fairly miserable and
desperate life. Please don't anyone confuse my contempt for this film
as being a comment on the Christian religion. IMO, it's one of many
excellent paths leading to the same goal, namely understanding of the
<insert here> Divine, Universal Self, Supreme Being, Godhood, etc.
In the world of cinema, I've had spiritual experiences where I least
expected them. The movie Billy Jack, of all things, raised my
consciousness about 30 years ago when I first saw it. Same thing for
Zeffirelli's film about St. Francis of Assisi. Ben Hur moved me quite
a bit. Perhaps it was because I was still so young and innocent (ha!),
but the experience was genuine.
It strikes me that the people most enjoying the Passion of the Christ
are committed Christians already. Edna is one and my sister-in-law,
whom I spoke to last night, is another. More power to them. The
buttressing of faith they receive from the film overrides everything
else. It's not that way for me, but I've stated my case and will now
move on to other things.
Judy M
about
> Pilate. This was mentioned in a newspaper which my dear sweet Viki threw
out
> before I could copy the reference. I can't find it online. It referenced a
> meeting with a Jewish delegation and Nero. Any ideas?
>
> Dr Sam
>
>
You might be thinking about Philo of Alexandria, who was a contemporary of
Jesus and Paul, and preceded Josephus. In his *Embassy to Caligula* he
includes a letter from Herod Agrippa to Caligula where Herod compares
Caligula's attempt to have his statue placed in the Temple at Jerusalem to
Pilate's attempt to have shields with pagan inscriptions placed in his
Jerusalem palace. When Philo was pretty old he headed the Jewish embassy to
Caligula in AD (or CE) 40. Since Nero was the last of the Julio-Claudian
emperors and followed Caligula and Claudius, it is doubtful if Philo had an
audience with him. Hope this helps.
Judy M.
Doug
Doug
Lucy Pfeffa
Oh, Doug, that's too hard. I'm a Reform Agnostic. We don't know, we don't
care, we don't do anything about it and we don't have holidays. EVERY DAY is
special!!
-- Lucy, who really does refer to her December indoor tree as the "Solstice
Tree"
Jim Short
from it.
I spent many months trying to wrap my head around the notion of a lapsed
Unitarian.
jim
"Never piss off a Unitarian. They might burn a question mark in your
yard" - Garrison Keillor
Samuel L. Rusk
who knocks on your door but doesn't know why.
Dr Sam...
...former Unitarian Minister
"Jim Short" <thethinman36...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4059AF05...@yahoo.com...
Dr. Barbara Horwitz
given me a nose full of coffee. If I get aspiration pneumonia, my
lawyer will contact your lawyer.
My lawyer says he's a Taoist, and sent me a link. Once I start reading
something that seems to suggest that everything is nothing, I start
wondering about quitting my job and burning my bills. Maybe it's meant
to be read in the afternoon.
I don't know much about Unitarianism; in Philadelphia the main church
is located next to the Theosophical Society. All I've ever seen of
them is that they seem to concur pretty well with the Code of Lazarus,
'first, do no harm', and those few I know seem to keep what questions
they have gentle and not cynical.
--------
Barbara
Judy M
"Lucy Pfeffa" <lpf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040318005752...@mb-m23.aol.com...
> Oh, Doug, that's too hard. I'm a Reform Agnostic. We don't know, we
don't
> care, we don't do anything about it and we don't have holidays. EVERY DAY
is
> special!!
>
> -- Lucy, who really does refer to her December indoor tree as the
"Solstice
> Tree"
>
>
Hmm. Well, I think I'll call myself a Devout Egalitarian, since I consider
prostitution, all political parties, all man-made religions, and the
respective pimps thereof to be equally contemptible.
Judy M, debating with myself whether to hang ribbons and plastic eggs and
chocolate rabbits on the forsythias in celebration of Ostara, or just mow
the yard
RatsLinger1
Friday,...
I remember my sister-in-law complained that we were pounding all those nails...
I believe in Jesus as a prophet....
"Crucifiction" is the more accurate spelling actually, ...since the story of
Christ dying on the cross was unheard of until approx. 1000 yrs after his
death...
I still remember those long boring mornings in my presbyterian Sunday school.
When I asked, "After the crucifixion, Jesus went to live eternally in Heaven.
So what's the big deal out of his suffering for a few days on the cross?
My Sunday school teacher never seemed to provide a satisfactory answer. She
just gave me Ritz Crackers by the handfull to keep me quiet.
Mark E.
Dr. Barbara Horwitz
--------
Barbara
Lucy Pfeffa
chocolate rabbits on the forsythias in celebration of Ostara, or just mow
the yard <<
Oh, be totally wacky and put up reindeer and snowmen. (Don't the chocolate
bunnies melt?)
-- Lucy, whose neighbors just took down their Christmas lights last week.
...odd, since they usually leave them up (and LIGHT them!) until spring -
they've got a day to go yet...
Judy M
The bunnies would probably melt, since it's pretty warm here now. If I
didn't eat them first. I don't think Eostre would understand about reindeer
and snowmen, but one never knows. Anyway, it's the thought that counts, no?
Judy M, opting to mow, since the grass needs cut more than the forsythias
need chocolate