OT: mel gibsons new movie

[Macca]

I think El Garbo's point is that he was digusted with the anti-semitism in the movie. Can I ask why El Garbo? Isn't it just telling the story and how it really was? I havn't seen it yet.

 

[Me Luv Stevo]

i seen it yesterday, and yeah the movie is very movie i cried the whole way through it was realy upsetting.but the movie was one i reccomend to anyone even if they dont go to church etc.
it was brilliant and makes u realise just what happened. it was like you were actually there when he was crucified..

 

[Anonymous]

I think El Garbo's point is that he was digusted with the anti-semitism in the movie. Can I ask why El Garbo? Isn't it just telling the story and how it really was? I havn't seen it yet.

In the movie, both the Romans and the Jews can take the blame for the torture and death of Jesus. However both have been treated very differently. The Romans which subject Jesus to the torture are portrayed as completely animalistic; which offers the effect of absolving them of guilt. The Romans whose job it is to sentence Jesus according to his crimes are shown as relatively humane; they have a real struggle with their own morality.

The Jews on the other hand, don't have this morality based struggle. No feelings of guilt are depicted. They don't appear to be ashamed of their choices.

Is this how the story really was? I don't know, I wasn't there. I do know, however, that someone who takes this stuff too seriously could leave the film with a burning hatred for the Jews based on how they are depicted in the movie.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

I would like to see the movie in a rally old stone church.
I think the acoustics are great to add to the atmosphere.
I love the roar of laughter in buildings like that!

 

[Houdini]

I saw the movie over the weekend and it is an incredibly powerful movie.

I wasn't sure what to think when I walked out of the cinema, the torture that Jesus went through was quite emotionally jarring. However the movie isn't preachy and it did not make me question my stance on religion, so I won't be heading back to church anytime soon.

The movie follows the story as it is told in the Bible. I don't think the point of the movie is to be anti-sematic, even though the Jews wanted Jesus crucified, we are also shown how Jesus forgave them for what they have done and he prays for them as he is nailed to the cross.

 

[Macca]

Yeah, I guess no one really knows what happened, but from my knowledge, the jews were the ones that wanted him dead, I guess I'll have to go check it out myself.

 

[coolumsharkie]

I would like to see the movie in a rally old stone church.
I think the acoustics are great to add to the atmosphere.
I love the roar of laughter in buildings like that!

:shock: :lol: :lol:

 

[Doctor]

I think El Garbo's point is that he was digusted with the anti-semitism in the movie. Can I ask why El Garbo? Isn't it just telling the story and how it really was? I havn't seen it yet.

In the movie, both the Romans and the Jews can take the blame for the torture and death of Jesus. However both have been treated very differently. The Romans which subject Jesus to the torture are portrayed as completely animalistic; which offers the effect of absolving them of guilt. The Romans whose job it is to sentence Jesus according to his crimes are shown as relatively humane; they have a real struggle with their own morality.

The Jews on the other hand, don't have this morality based struggle. No feelings of guilt are depicted. They don't appear to be ashamed of their choices.

Is this how the story really was? I don't know, I wasn't there. I do know, however, that someone who takes this stuff too seriously could leave the film with a burning hatred for the Jews based on how they are depicted in the movie.

The faces of the Pharisees when they realised the immensity of what they had done gave a great picture of remorse - you could see the shame and guilt in their faces, especially the chief fellow Caiphas (name?).

I also don't believe you should tone down what happened just because it paints people in a negative light in an effort to show truth. We don't complain about World War II movies painting the Germans in a negative light because we live with the knowledge (and some with primary accounts) of what occurred.

Why should we be so politically correct when it comes to the truth? The story is accurate, and shows the terrible weight of sin for what it is: an afterthought brought about when we realise what we've done.

I take the blame for Christ's death - he carried the weight of my sin up there on the cross - and I only hope the Jewish community see the film for what it is: an accurate depiction of the Bible's account.

Until the Bible is banned for being anti-semetic, I don't think The Passion will be found to be in breech of anything by way of anti-semetism. The Old Testament (even the sections that the Jews believe wholeheatedly in) paint the Jews in a negative light countless times. But it also describes how God restored them to his favour. The reason we're still reading it isn't because the Jews were bad people, but that their highs and lows of life are still applicable to today's struggles in life. We stuff up sometimes, and that is when we need God to restore us to his favour.

It is because we're all human and we're all susceptible to fail on life's journey that the movie was made - the message is in Christ's suffering for all of humanity, and not there to blame anyone for Christ's death.

 

[Anonymous]

The faces of the Pharisees when they realised the immensity of what they had done gave a great picture of remorse - you could see the shame and guilt in their faces, especially the chief fellow Caiphas (name?).

This lasts for all of about three seconds of the film, and only after the earthquake which devastates the temple. It was a look of 'hmm, crap, maybe we got the wrong guy.' They didn't appear sympathetic at all during any of the torture scenes and were often portrayed as a pack of bloodthirsty savages.

I also don't believe you should tone down what happened just because it paints people in a negative light in an effort to show truth. We don't complain about World War II movies painting the Germans in a negative light because we live with the knowledge (and some with primary accounts) of what occurred.

You're drawing a long bow there. The Nazis were responsible for mass killings, attempts of genocide and all manner of other brutalities. The Jews, in this case, were responsible for the trial and death of a prophet who had broken their laws by claiming to be the messiah. Much of what happened in the 1930's-1940's remains disputed, despite the wealth of evidence and primary accounts. The story of the New Testament occurred over 2000 years ago - how can we ascertain that this is all completely true, given that we have only one piece of evidence to judge by?

Why should we be so politically correct when it comes to the truth? The story is accurate, and shows the terrible weight of sin for what it is: an afterthought brought about when we realise what we've done.

Like I said - how do we know the story of the New Testament is the truth? It is one account of events. Every other historical text is full of personal bias, inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Why not the bible? It was written by the supporters of Christ, so therefore it is obviously skewed to put him in a favourable light. Where are the Jewish texts relating to these events? Until we have both sides of the story, how can gather an accurate version of the events that unfolded?

I take the blame for Christ's death - he carried the weight of my sin up there on the cross - and I only hope the Jewish community see the film for what it is: an accurate depiction of the Bible's account.

Fair point, but the fact that the bible is the basis for much of the anti-semitism for that last 2000 years only helps my case.

Until the Bible is banned for being anti-semetic, I don't think The Passion will be found to be in breech of anything by way of anti-semetism. The Old Testament (even the sections that the Jews believe wholeheatedly in) paint the Jews in a negative light countless times. But it also describes how God restored them to his favour. The reason we're still reading it isn't because the Jews were bad people, but that their highs and lows of life are still applicable to today's struggles in life. We stuff up sometimes, and that is when we need God to restore us to his favour.

I never said either the bible or the film should be banned. I'm all for freedom of artistic expression and allowing people to choose for themselves. However, my interpretation was that the film took an overly harsh stance on the Jews and it wouldn't surprise me if it spawned more anti-semitism amongst people who view it.

Don't get me wrong - I thought it was a very thought provoking film. However, it is hard to deny that it took a fairly harsh stance on the Jews and given the constant persecution that has befallen them over the past several thousand years, I think it could have easily been more sensitive and offered more of their view point.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Hey if you spray prawn juice on Jewish people, do they smoke & burn like vampires do in the sunlight?

 

[Anonymous]

Hey if you spray prawn juice on Jewish people, do they smoke & burn like vampires do in the sunlight?

:lol: You idiot, reefy. Now Anderson's gone you're lowering yourself to dreadful levels to make a fuss around here...

 

[Macca]

Are you Jewish Garbo?

 

[Anonymous]

:lol:

Far from it McSharkie. I'm about as unreligious as they come, but I'm happy to support someone's right to believe in whatever the hell they want.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

I believe I'll have another oyster & prawn ceviche. Maybe even a bacon roll.

 

[Anonymous]

Are you sure you'd want to waste that food by eating it, blacktip, when you could be throwing it at Jewish people? You goose...

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Even better. I can jut walk past & lick them.

Blacktip the jew licker!!

 

[Macca]

Hmmm, your pills Reefy, don't forget to take your pills! :lol:

 

[Sheros los Deros]

I don't think "disgustingly" actually goes before that word.
maybe try;

sufficiently
insufficiently
appropriately
interestingly
justifiably
brilliantly

etc etc.

I recommend against the excessive use of adverbs. Some suggest that adverbs dress up weak verbs and nouns.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

beautifuly said.


#-o

 

[Doctor]

This lasts for all of about three seconds of the film, and only after the earthquake which devastates the temple. It was a look of 'hmm, crap, maybe we got the wrong guy.' They didn't appear sympathetic at all during any of the torture scenes and were often portrayed as a pack of bloodthirsty savages.

I read parts of the Gospels last night, and this is what they did - give or take some of Gibson's artistic licence.

Why are we blaming Mel Gibson for painting the Jews in a negative light, if his movie is based entirely on the Gospels which outline what happened? We're saying that it is Mel Gibson's fault that the bible documents the acts of the Pharisees and the Jews in the area 2000 years ago.

The story of the New Testament occurred over 2000 years ago - how can we ascertain that this is all completely true, given that we have only one piece of evidence to judge by?

I realise this won't satisfy your line of questioning, but we know it is true because God says it is true. God is infallible, meaning he does not and will not lie. If God says that x number of people were raised from the dead, x number killed and a certain person lived for x number of years on earth, then I believe it. On the surface you could accuse me of blindly believing what I'm told - I too realise how silly it sounds. But it is called faith - I might not have as much of it as I should - but it is something that can't be described or explained using human logic.

Like I said - how do we know the story of the New Testament is the truth? It is one account of events.

Every other historical text is full of personal bias, inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Why not the bible? It was written by the supporters of Christ, so therefore it is obviously skewed to put him in a favourable light.

The Gospels were written by God, manifest through the words of men. Once again, doesn't make sense to logical people like you and me, but that is how it is. God gives us all gifts, they're called 'spiritual gifts' - you've got them, if you like it or not. :roll:
Those who wrote the story of the cruxifiction were probably blessed with gifts like 'discernment', 'wisdom', 'faith', 'knowledge' and/or 'teaching'. You can have varying levels of all these, they may well have been blessed with these gifts so that they heard what God said and they put it in writing. It isn't like a dictaphone, you wouldn't heard a booming voice from heaven (although God would be more than capable of this) - it would be as a result of being so close to God that you write what you saw and let God's spirit guide what you write.

Once again - tough to understand for you and I, but that's how it is and was.

Where are the Jewish texts relating to these events? Until we have both sides of the story, how can gather an accurate version of the events that unfolded?

The Jews believe Jesus was a prophet, a very good prophet. But the earlier Old Testament books like Isaiah etc prophesised that the Son of God, a great King, would come down from heaven to rescue them. Trouble is, when he did come they didn't believe him because they were expecting a glorious entrance, shining light and the full power of God. Instead he sent his son in the most humble of places, the back shed with the animals, and he grew up as a working class man who wasn't wearing a crown and didn't go into the kings/governor's residences and blow them away with the power that God has. He instead taught people by lowering himself to their level, in this was he appealed to the common man who had a poor image of a King.

Unfortunately the Jews are still waiting for the First Arrival - Christians are waiting for the second arrival. The Jews are still the chosen people, the Bible says this, but as for how it all works, I really don't know. Christians don't hold anything against the Jewish people - they trace back to Abraham, and we worship the same God. It is just the life of Jesus, and since then, that we disagree on.

Anyway:
I've got a logical mind, much like yours El. I can see what you're saying: how do you know? why do you believe it all? etc

The only answer I have for you is faith: I believe that God's truth is absolute, the only absolute in the world. It is a tough ask to just believe that on face value, but I do - it isn't blind belief, it is thanks to a relationship with God that I'm nowhere near complete on, and that I struggle with every day.

We can only do our best I suppose.