|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Church bookings for The Passion
|
Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 01-26-2004 09:04 AM
1. Anything taken from the new testament is historically suspect, as it is a notoriously bigoted work of fiction, especially where it attempts to justify why Jesus own people clearly rejected him a false profit. Theology aside, as an historical work it is a joke, and it’s portrayal of the Jewish people of the time is not based in facts.
2. What’s with this “Roman” crap. Last I looked, Rome was located in Italy. The Italian occupation government of Judea arrested Jesus, tried Jesus, and executed Jesus. Yes, there were Jews who cooperated with the Italian occupation government, as there have been scum throughout the ages who have cooperated with foreign occupiers, but they have never spoken for the masses. King Herod was half Italian, and appointed by the Italian occupation authorities, not the Jewish people. Calling them “Roman” is just a lame attempt to hide the fact that they were Italians.
Propagating lies and bigotry in the guise of religious dogma is not acceptable, and this is what people are complaining about.
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 01-26-2004 10:52 AM
Anti-Defamation League reaction:
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/4430_96.htm
Catholic News Service:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/20031224.htm
quote:
Vatican officials say pope didn't comment after viewing 'The Passion'
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Although Pope John Paul II watched at least part of Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of the Christ," he made no comment about the film, said a senior Vatican official close to the pope.
"The Holy Father saw it, but he made no comment. He watched in silence," the official told Catholic News Service Dec. 24.
"The Holy Father does not comment, does not give judgments on art," the official said. "I repeat: There was no declaration, no judgment from the pope."
The official was replying to a request for clarification after numerous newspapers reported that the pope had watched the film and said, "It is as it was."
The purported quote was interpreted as papal praise for the movie.
The official, who insisted that his name not be used, said the pope made no such comment.
He also said that he, too, had seen the film and felt charges that the movie was anti-Semitic were "an exaggeration."
Another well-informed Vatican official, responding Dec. 24 to an e-mailed request for information, said, "The Holy Father saw this film, but did not express any opinion about it."
The pope's spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, has refused to confirm the supposed papal quote, which was relayed to reporters by the film's co-producer, Steve McEveety.
After sending a copy of the film to the papal apartments in early December, McEveety met with Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, the pope's personal secretary.
The Vatican made no comment about the meeting.
"The Passion of the Christ," directed by Gibson, is scheduled to be released in the United States Feb. 25, which will be Ash Wednesday.
Even before the editing of the film began, it became the object of controversy because of alleged anti-Semitism in the script.
In a Dec. 17 statement, Abraham H. Foxman, U.S. director of the Anti-Defamation League, said, "If in fact Pope John Paul II has screened Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of Christ' and if in fact his reaction to the film was positive, as has been reported, then we respect his statement.
"The pope has a record and history of sensitivity to the Jewish community and has a clear moral voice and understanding when it comes to anti-Semitism," Foxman said.
While he said he would reserve judgment until he has had an opportunity to see the film, Foxman said, "We hope that Mel Gibson has heard our concerns and those of Christian and Jewish scholars and religious leaders, who expressed unease about the earlier version of the film and its potential to fuel, rationalize and legitimize anti-Semitism."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"
Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 01-27-2004 03:38 AM
quote:
There are millions of people who would disagree with you including historians, archaeologists and, of course, theologians.
Without wanting this to drift towards a religious discussion, which would a)be fruitless and b)not allowed on this website, I would like to remark that it is commonly accepted (also by many theologians) that the New Testament does not contain any historically provable facts. There is no single contemporary historical account outside the gospels which sheds light on the events described therein. There are some remarks by historians a few decades later which suggest that a historical Jesus did in fact exist. But the gospels are essentially works of faith, not of history, conveying a spiritual and religious world of ideas, not actual facts and quotes. Which is also obvious from the fact that there are several gospels which differ from each other, in addition to a number of sources which stem from the same time period but were not selected into the official body of writings.
quote:
What’s with this “Roman” crap.
While I think the name "Italia" as a geographical term for the peninsula was already used in antique times, the Romans did not have a perception of Italy as a state or cultural region as we have it today. The Italian peninsula was inhabited by various loosely related tribes, many of which spoke a language or dialect related to the Latin language. But not all - some spoke Celtic or Etruscan dialects. Even though the Romans subjugated all of the peninsula and then most of the known world, they never saw "Italia" as an entity, their homeland or center of gravity. That was essentially the region of Latium (in modern Italian "Lazio"), therefore they called their language "lingua latina" (the language of Latium), not "romana" or "italiana". And they saw themselves as "Romans", not "Italians", a concept which at that time did simply not exist.
Why then did they call themselves "romani", not "latini"? Because in their thinking, the idea of Rome was not a cultural, but political one. Roman was who held the citzenship of the republic of Rome, irrespective of language or culture.
In fact, Italian culture is not a parallel phenomenon but a consequence of the Roman influence, as the Romans imposed their language which would later be the basis for modern Italian over a region which at their time did not have a common language and culture.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mitchell Cope
Master Film Handler
Posts: 256
From: Overland Park, KS, United States
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-27-2004 09:01 AM
The 10th-Century Arabic translation of the Testimonium recounted by Agapius (Josephus' Antiquities, Book 18, Ch. 3):
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and his learning outstanding. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after the crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." - translation of Shlomo Pines
Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies, especially those found in Isaiah. "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not." (Isaiah 53:3, NIV)
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." (NIV) Even a non-Christian would have to agree that the Christian church has not been overcome by Hell or those who won't believe.
I guess we will have to see the movie. It's probably more relevant to our lives than say "The Alamo" or "Titanic".
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 01-27-2004 10:27 AM
Well, as long as this is being allowed to drift into a religious discussion...
Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies
Not true. If it were, Christianity and Judaism would not two seperate religions. The profecy is quite explicit, that the coming of the messiah would free Judea from foreign occupation and there would be 1000 years of peace on earth. Jesus accomplished neither.
While it is certainly within God's power to change his mind and decided that we were not ready, from a Jewish viewpoint that does not make sense. It implies that God did not know what he was doing 2000 years ago when he sent the mesiah to earth.
The Christian old testament is a translation of the Jewish Torah. The problem is that the Christian scholars who translated it took liberties with the text and sprinkled it word and phrases not in the Hebrew original in order to validate Jesus as the messiah.
One of the problems that Jews and Christians have always faced is that when one thinks about it, we are really different sects of the same religion. We share the same God, the same values, the moral code, and unfortunately, some people on both sides share the same intolerance and lack of respect for the belief in others.
Whatever the actual events that took place 2000 years ago were, it is clear that Christian and Jewish scholars have of very different view of the events.
From the perspective of "respect the beliefs of others", nobody should have a problem with this film. It is a work of theology, and should be respected as such. However, it also depicts historical events that there is far from universal agreement on, and more importantly, events that have been used throught out history as the basis for persecution. From that perspective, one can understand the objections.
/Mitchell
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Wale
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 167
From: Guymon, OK USA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-27-2004 11:01 AM
quote:
Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies
Not true.
This is exactly why these things never go anywhere. Not true? Dude, that is a very true statement. You are saying that he didn't fulfil one prophecy so he didn't fulfil any of them. That's an issue of interperetation of timing on that prophecy, not an issue of whether or not he fulfilled OT prophecy.
He fulfilled 88 messianic prophecies. The odds of that are astronomical. In fact, the odds that he would fulfil 8 of them are more astounding than any of us can imagine.
It seems quite logical to me that if there were nearly a hundred prophecies, some of them would require others to be able to be fulfilled. He has to come as a lamb before he can return as a lion. Last I checked, those were two different prophecies pointing to two different time periods. Whether one thinks that is the way it should be or should have been is one thing... to say that he didn't fulfil OT prophecy is wishing something that did happen didn't. It also has nothing to do with this film or the intent of this thread.
Jesus and the disciples were Jews. 95% of those he ministered to are Jews. He commanded to forgive the Jewish leaders for they knew not what they did(which was also referring to the Roman soldiers and leaders that were involved). The text is clear to speak of the specific Jewish leaders who had been corrupted. Gee, we talk about our nation's leaders all the time like that. Does that make us antiaUSA?
Just like a certain group of idiots who claimed to be christians started the crusades(while many many many christians condemned it as against the nonviolent and love thy enemy teachings of Christ), so happened in Jesus' day with those particular pharisees. To talk about a specific group of them doesn't in any way say that all Jews are like that.
Anything that would teach that the Jews are at fault for killing Jesus is clearly 180 degrees off the Exacting point as to why Jesus came.... which was to save humanity because in essence the Jew, Gentile, modern Christian, whoever are sinners and need God to pardon them of thier guilt.
So, the whole point would be if anything that if the Jews were that bad, everyone else must really be bad(while that wasn't the point I can see how poeple might feel that way.)
I am excited about this film, but I feel that it will likely fly over most people's heads and interest. I have a feeling that only artistic thinkers, those into literature, philosophy, and religion will really be very interested in this film. Just because Americans don't tend to like to think about movies they see. Even LOTR and Matrix have two very distinct groups of fans. Those who love the big battles and fight scenes and not much else, and those who love the depths. Not much action involved with The Passion.
Maybe I'm wrong. I hope so. I'd like to think that people in general enjoy deep thoughtful movies.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic