Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I saw this movie some time ago. It's one of those films, glad you saw it, don't need to THAT again!
You are correct about depressing and graphically violent. Some people said it was too violent. I argue that over time the Christians have so 'sanitized' the crucifixion, that in popular parlance it pretty much bears no resemblance to a death, it's almost more of a 'trial'. Inconvenient and a nuisance.
However, it would have been as horrific and terrible as depicted, and Christians are just not used to seeing that, it has become "a spiritual transformation'', and therefore it has been and is presented as something "liberating and uplifting" as opposed to what it was.
I saw this movie some time ago. It's one of those films, glad you saw it, don't need to THAT again!
You are correct about depressing and graphically violent. Some people said it was too violent. I argue that over time the Christians have so 'sanitized' the crucifixion, that in popular parlance it pretty much bears no resemblance to a death, it's almost more of a 'trial'. Inconvenient and a nuisance.
However, it would have been as horrific and terrible as depicted, and Christians are just not used to seeing that, it has become "a spiritual transformation'', and therefore it has been and is presented as something "liberating and uplifting" as opposed to what it was.
Horrifcally Violent.
Isn't this just what we always do, Les? We romanticise the past, particularly if it was very nasty. So, for example, decades after the War, we use "Dunkirk Spirit" to describe, not an ignominious defeat and scandalous scramble, but a sort of grim resistance. We have transformed the murderous outlaw, Robin Hood, into a folk hero.
We do it to our own lives too. Recognising this and stripping away the deceptive 'spin' may expose us to a colder, harder world but enables us to glimpse the reality.
It's a beautifully shot film, sadly that's about all it has going for it. While I understand that the crucifixion would, by its nature, be quite violent, and that the Gospels give an account of Christ being lashed before his execution. The Gospels do not, however, mention anything about him being beaten every step of the way. The movie would have been much better suited he it included more of Christ's teachings. As it is however it's little more than a mainstream snuff film, and an excuse for Gibson to dress his obsession with violence in pious clothing.
That post was fantastic to me. Especially when you said;
That sentence rings so true it's amazing.
I saw that film at a time when I was trying to hang on to, and validate, what shred of Christian faith I had left. Instead the movie, and the fact that it was so celebrated, sickened me. If anything it may have eroded my Christianity just a little bit more.
I saw this movie a few times ... and i comming from a jewish background I have to say i have mixed feelings about it..
On one hand - i always find it interesting when history is put on film... and certainly the dress, and the portrayal of life in Israel and its cities at that time would - i would say reasonably accurate ...
also - as a linguist i found it interesting to hear aramaic ( the language of much of the hebrew scriptures ) spoken outside the context of a prayer book... and if im REALLY going to be picky - i personally didnt like the quite sinister whispering snarling tone the language was given and the way it leaned towards an arabic breathy sound ... when really aramaic would have sounded more solid - since the influence of Islam via the arabian peninsula would not arrive in israel for quite some time...
what i really really didnt like about it though was this age old horrifically antisemitic portrayal as all jews being hooked nosed evil plotting jesus killers with nothing more to do with their lives than to sin against god and / or non jews...
and i found the portrayal of Judas as being in league with Satan really quite disturbing ... especially as Judas / Judah is hebrew for Jew... the connotations and overtones of that were really unpleasant...
that aside - i also didnt like the attempt to almost intertwine Judaism and christianity ... with the idea that Judaism was some how surpassed or completed by the Christian messiah...
From a jewish perspective - christianity and Judaism share a few things in commen - but a lot of jewish people i know reject the idea of '' judeo christianity ''' ... and when you look below the surface of an abrahamic god its easy to see that Judaism and christianity are poles apart ...
many people really have no idea WHY jews rejected jesus ... and the mel gibson film does nothing to enlighten them... instead it reinforces the old idea that jews rejected jesus almost to be mean - or to hack of the people that believed he was the messiah...
It probably sounds like im being way over the top... but its hard to explain the effect films like this can have on the worlds jews... we have enough problems fighting silly old stereotypes and hatred without influential people like gibson turning the clock back a good few hundred years...
that aside - i also didnt like the attempt to almost intertwine Judaism and christianity ... with the idea that Judaism was some how surpassed or completed by the Christian messiah...
Well to be honest that is kinda the idea of Christianity - that Jesus' life, ministry, and ultimately, sacrifice fulfill the old Covenant and instituted a new one. Which gets me when Christians use passages from the Old Testament to justify all sorts of bigotry. But then Christianity runs contrary to the old Jewish law anyway.
And Jesus was a sailor
When he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
He said "All men will be sailors then
Until the sea shall free them"
But he himself was broken
Long before the sky would open
Forsaken, almost human
He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone
And you want to travel with him
And you want to travel blind
And you think maybe you'll trust him
For he's touched your perfect body with his mind.
L. Cohen
That's the perfect answer!!! Loved that song!! (Leonard Cohen, the singer/songwriter that depressed two generations!!)
I've no doubt that there was once a Rabbi named Yeshua ben Yoseph (Jesus, son of Joseph) who had some interesting ideas, unwise political asperations and that he came to a bad end like many who dared to cross the Romans.
However, if you're going to try to convince me that after his death he shot bolt upright and crawled out of his tomb like Dracula only to then fly away like Superman...well- I'm afraid that I'm going to have to take issue with that.:skeptical
Jesus is a real historical figure written about even by the Romans to say nothing of the Gospels etc. He really lived, TF. His existence is not a matter of opinion or faith but of fact.
Who he was and what he was really like, on the other hand, are up for debate. :eek::D
Jesus is a real historical figure written about even by the Romans to say nothing of the Gospels etc. He really lived, TF. His existence is not a matter of opinion or faith but of fact.
Who he was and what he was really like, on the other hand, are up for debate. :eek::D
You know - there are lots of theories that wonder if jesus really existed... to be honest - there are lots of strong arguments in favor of his non - existance...
for starters.. many of jesus followers would have been illeterate.. there is nothing i know of that was written down while he was still alive..
- many of the gospels were written hundreds of years in some cases after jesus died.. that gave plenty of time for his legend to spread - and theres no way of knowing that the authors of the later gospels werent just working with the demand for stories about this now famous man god... a bit like the writters of today writing what they think people will want to read - in order to sell the most books...
context - a lot of people forget - that by the time roman occupation came along, the jewish people had been occupied many times.. most recently by the brutal reign of antiochus.. they were made second class citizens in their own land, ruled harshly by who they considered to be a bunch of debaucherous idolatrers ...
the need for a hero, for the promised messiah... to come along and take the jewish people out of this horrible situation and to bring them all the things they had been promised for more than 2000 years before ( their own land, freedom, to be placed as an example to all other nations etc ) ... this need was really really strong.. the jewish people were utterly desparate..
you can imagine - in such a situation that it would not have been hard for some one who wanted an uprising against the jews, to fabricate this man god messiah in order to get people to rebel...
way back in the days before tv or any kind of mass communication.. all youd have to do is get people on your side - willing to lie and say theyd seen or heard this guy and move from village to village saying the same thing --and recruiting others willing to lie .. and in the days when romans were regularly killing people on stakes - it wouldnt be hard to get these people to gather round a random guy - dying on a stake and say he was the messiah theyd all been talking about ...
before dna testing there would have been no way to disprove them...
the other theory is - that jesus was a rebel, some one looking for an uprising whos followers did a clever bit of early pr and blew him way beyond what he actually was in order to get people on thier side... in such an unstable environment - it wouldnt have been hard to get the right looking guy to spout some pre rehearsed religuiious stuff .. annoy the priests to give him a bit of credibility and get the people believeing the messiah had come and that they could now ...
its interesting to note as well that the original jewish idea of the messiah - is not a man god - but a leader, a king, a soldier - with exceptional - but very human skills and abilities who will physically lead the jewish people and eventually the world into paradise... not with religious teachings but with shear ability - and god on his side... hed be more like Elvis or Che Gueverra than a man god ...
also - there have been lots of people throughout jewish history claiming to be the messiah - all have so far been disproved..
also - compare the story of jesus and his teachings to middle and near eastern religions of the time.. it almost looks like some one has mixed and matched... to me - there is so little originality in the story or teachings of jesus that it is highly possible that he is nothing more than a complete fabrication....
that gave plenty of time for his legend to spread - and theres no way of knowing that the authors of the later gospels werent just working with the demand for stories about this now famous man god... a bit like the writters of today writing what they think people will want to read - in order to sell the most books...
Authors didn't make money by selling books to a large market in those days. It wasn't possible to mass produce books until the printing press was invented. :-)
Every religious text is written by a particular community and represents what that community wants to believe.
The only place where Jesus is mentioned outside of Christian literature is a passage in Josephus, and that appears to be a later forgery. On the other hand, there appear to be three different early traditions that claimed Jesus as their founder. That would be three different groups of people in three different geographical locations who would have to get together and conspire to lie about a common founding figure. Since they also created three different sets of narratives about Jesus, it seems as though they weren't collaborating.
There are people mentioned in passing by ancient authors who aren't as well attested as Jesus, and no one doubts that they existed.
I agree with everything else you wrote, Channah. Each of the gospels is a literary production based on previous literary productions and written to explain and teach a particular view of Jesus. Mel Gibson's film is also a literary production. When it came out, someone timed the various scenes and discovered that only about fifteen minutes of the film were taken from the gospels. Much of the rest came from written records of visions experienced by a rather anti-semitic nun who lived in the nineteenth century. So the film was produced in the same way the gospels were; it represents the beliefs of Mel Gibson's religious community (a conservative group of break away Catholics), it uses previous literary productionsas raw materials, and it organizes and extends those materials to teach a particular set of beliefs.
BTW, the texts of all religions were created this way.
Of the four canonical gospels, the first was written shortly after the destruction of the second temple, and the last was written around 120 CE.
Authors didn't make money by selling books to a large market in those days. It wasn't possible to mass produce books until the printing press was invented. :-)
Every religious text is written by a particular community and represents what that community wants to believe.
The only place where Jesus is mentioned outside of Christian literature is a passage in Josephus, and that appears to be a later forgery. On the other hand, there appear to be three different early traditions that claimed Jesus as their founder. That would be three different groups of people in three different geographical locations who would have to get together and conspire to lie about a common founding figure. Since they also created three different sets of narratives about Jesus, it seems as though they weren't collaborating.
There are people mentioned in passing by ancient authors who aren't as well attested as Jesus, and no one doubts that they existed.
I agree with everything else you wrote, Channah. Each of the gospels is a literary production based on previous literary productions and written to explain and teach a particular view of Jesus. Mel Gibson's film is also a literary production. When it came out, someone timed the various scenes and discovered that only about fifteen minutes of the film were taken from the gospels. Much of the rest came from written records of visions experienced by a rather anti-semitic nun who lived in the nineteenth century. So the film was produced in the same way the gospels were; it represents the beliefs of Mel Gibson's religious community (a conservative group of break away Catholics), it uses previous literary productionsas raw materials, and it organizes and extends those materials to teach a particular set of beliefs.
BTW, the texts of all religions were created this way.
You made some interesting points.. and they made me think about why im williing to believe in Buddha and Krishna but seriously doubt the existance of Jesus... even though ..as you said both have the same issues with regards to texts, preaching to a largely illetarate audiance etc ...
I didnt know the thing you mentioned about mel gibsons film although it does explain a lot...
its obvious that Gibson had his own agenda when making this film - and historical accuracy wasnt one of them... it made me think though of the way that jews have been portrayed in historical films in the past... take the likes of ben hur and the other films that were made in the 50s and 60s and before...
It seems to me the jewish people have always been portrayed as easily lead, slightly backwards people who didnt really get what god was trying to tell them and who had quite a merry old time killing jesus ... and really really got it wrong by rejecting him as the messiah ...
as I mentioned in the previous post - the only thing i liked about the Gibson film was the language and the costumes ... the rest could have come right out of the middle ages in terms of its portrayel of jews ...
Before responding to your comments, let me point something out. Quoting from the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions:
El(Heb. 'God') The name of the supreme God of the Canaanite pantheon...The relation of Yhwh to El/Elohim was initially one of subordination; El delegated responsibilities and nations to lesser gods. But gradually Yhwh, Israel's God, displaced El as the god...
Yhwh also had a female consort, who gradually disappeared.
The point I'm making is that no modern religion exists in its original form. It's part of the myth of every religious denomination that their version of their religion is the original version, or it represents the teachings of their god or their founder exactly as the teachings were originally delivered. When we are able to examine some historical record and discover how a religion was originally practiced or see how the teachings evolved, this never turns out to be the case.
The earliest books of the Torah reached their final form around 700 BC. When they describe the world at the time of Moses, they describe it inaccurately. When other books describe the kingdom of David and Solomon, the evidence indicates that they are describing it inaccurately. Generally speaking, when a book of the bible describes a period prior to the time the book was written, the description is historically inaccurate.
Mel Gibson's film portrays the basic, core myth of the religion he grew up in and that he obviously practices and believes in. I don't mean Christianity, I mean nineteenth century Catholicism. It's not really fair to say that he has an agenda. His "agenda" is exactly the agenda of the authors of the Torah, and the authors of the gospels, and the authors of the various Buddhist suttas and sutras. He's telling us what he believes is true. His film is a religious document in every sense of the word. He has been as accurate as he can be without violating the truth that he believes in.
One final point; don't make the mistake of believing that writing something down ensures its accurate transmission. We have lots of examples of written texts being edited, "corrected", added to, etc. In fact, I'm not sure that written texts are any more reliable than oral texts. The only clear advantage that a written text has is that it can be buried for hundreds of years and rediscovered.
Well its not the true story thats why... another thing he didn't die for us... if he knew that he was going to resurect again after 3 days.. that means he didn't die for our sin...
Are you attempting to join the conversation about this movie, or are you trying to use our site as a pulpit? Your comments thus far suggest the latter.
There were over 500 eye whitnesses to his resurection
According to whom? Are there sworn affidavits to this or are you going by a few accounts written decades after his death?
The apostles died horrible deaths beheaded burnt at the stake etc.. for what they knew was the truth. That Jesus was who he said he was. Fully Man and fully God.
You know, having read the Bible a time or two and the Gospels several times I don't recall Jesus himself ever actually stating that he was ether God or the son of God. As I recall he seemed to prefer to call himself Son of Man.
Some say that he was just a good moral teacher like Budda. He was either who he said he was or he was a liar or a crazy person claiming to be God. Roman and Jewish history never denied his miracles, only where his power came from.
To my knowledge there isn't a single mention of him outside of the Bible anywhere in history, save for Josephus, who's account is largely suspected of being a forgery.
God came to us in the flesh because we couldn't go to him. He laid down his life for those who hate him. Remember forgive them Father they know not what they are doing.
If you want to hang around here and discuss things in a polite respectful manner then welcome, but save the preaching. I've had enough of it to last three lifetimes.
There were over 500 eye whitnesses to his resurection. All we need is circumstantial evedence to convict a murder. Those who think the Gospel is foolishness are parishing. We don't want to believe in God because we love our sin. We want to be the ceo's of our own life. Please check out the book A CASE FOR FAITH AND A CASE FOR CHRIST. Lets see how open minded you really are.
You are simply regurgitating Strobel's arguments. I read both of his Case books, and they are full of fallacious reasoning. He simply interviewed a bunch of theists in order to demonstrate that God exists and then he interviewed a bunch of Christians in order to demonstrate the divinity of Christ. His inquiry was neither objective nor scientific.
Also, CS Lewis's argument that Christ was either God or crazy is a false dichotomy. It puts aside many other options. For example, he could have been misquoted, misinterpreted or mistaken (due to a profound spiritual experience).
A Buddhist forum is hardly the best place to proselytize. There are literally thousands of other internet forums that are available for all of this college freshman argument that one could ever hope for. If you are going to add anything useful, stop parroting Strobel and Lewis, et.al., and give a fresh perspective. The old arguments aren't just boring, they are unconvincing.
You came. You trolled. You left. It's been a few days and there's no further sign of you, so I don't expect you to read this. Nevertheless, I want to thank you for the opportunity to practice Buddhism. I found your posts irritating, and that gave me something to work with. Clearly, the three poisons of greed, anger, and delusion are as much at work in me as they are in you.
I understand your feelings of sin and powerlessness. I don't have them now, but I have had them. I understand the strong need to turn to some higher power in order to be forgiven and released. I hope you have this comfort for as long as you need it.
After thinking it over, I've decided that I really don't mind your posts. In making them, you had to do some minimal reading of the other posts in the threads you trolled in, and in the process you exposed yourself to some Buddhist ideas. It's always possible that in looking for ways to give offense, you will inadvertently stumble across a path that leads to salvation. And that, brother, is worth any irritation you may cost me.
You know - there are lots of theories that wonder if jesus really existed... to be honest - there are lots of strong arguments in favor of his non - existance...
for starters.. many of jesus followers would have been illeterate.. there is nothing i know of that was written down while he was still alive..
- many of the gospels were written hundreds of years in some cases after jesus died.. that gave plenty of time for his legend to spread - and theres no way of knowing that the authors of the later gospels werent just working with the demand for stories about this now famous man god... a bit like the writters of today writing what they think people will want to read - in order to sell the most books...
I would crack a joke, but... No, really, I'm just joking.
But if that's proof he didn't exist, then the same could be said of the Buddha. Undoubtedly half of what was written is crap - the same is true of Buddhism and every other religion. That doesn't mean Jesus, the man, the historical figure, didn't exist.
The stuff 'bout him being the son of God and all that? Yeah, debateable. But Brigid was only explaining that he was indeed a real person. Just as Siddhartha was.
And it's important to remember that that is not at all what Christ taught.
Palzang
Exactly - the notion that all sinners go to hell, is misunderstood christanity. One of the great points in jesus dying on the cross for ALL humans sins, is to empower christians to practice his loving teachings, not out of fear of hell and punishments, but out of a free will and compassion. You dont love your neighbours because god says you have to or else..... but because you really beleive its the right thing to do - and honetsly wants to practice the christian path of compassion.
I think its very sad, that movies and bad semipriests seem to have convinced most of the population that, acording to christianity, you go to hell if you sin, or just dont beleive - That is NOT christianity at ALL. :winkc:
I think its very sad, that movies and bad semipriests seem to have convinced most of the population that, acording to christianity, you go to hell if you sin, or just dont beleive - That is NOT christianity at ALL. :winkc:
Unfortunately, that is, in fact, Christianity. It may not be your interpretation of scripture, but it's certainly a reasonable one given the text and the one accepted by all the major sects. The New Testament is full of the Hell doctrine, so those who believe it to be accurate can be forgiven for espousing this view.
Unfortunately, that is, in fact, Christianity. It may not be your interpretation of scripture, but it's certainly a reasonable one given the text and the one accepted by all the major sects. The New Testament is full of the Hell doctrine, so those who believe it to be accurate can be forgiven for espousing this view.
With deep regret, I must agree that this is what much of "Churchianity" has become. It is what we might call a hemeneutic of exclusion, whereas there exists, at the margins of Christianity, a hermeneutic of inclusion.
In the same way as the many Buddhist texts on the hell realms, it is quite possible to read the escatology of the New Testament or the revanchism of the Tanakh as metaphorical and psychological rather than literal. Literalism is the curse of the reading classes.
@ Thought of Thoughht:
I am glad you cried. I'm sure I would, too. But I also cried at La Vita e Bella and quite a few other films. I can't be sure about The Passion because I don't like slash movies so haven't watched it. I have cried on Good Friday and Holy Saturday tho'.
I think the point here is that the way Christianity is practiced by most people who call themselves Christians has very little to do with what Christ actually taught, and most of that never found its way into the Bible. You have to check out the Gnostic books for that.
I think the point here is that the way Christianity is practiced by most people who call themselves Christians has very little to do with what Christ actually taught, and most of that never found its way into the Bible. You have to check out the Gnostic books for that.
There is no reliable way to know that the Gnostic gospels are more accurate than the canonical gospels. Neither were written during Christ's lifetime (indeed, there is not much to indicate he ever lived) and both contain many contradictions. Additionally, there is much evidence that the versions we have of both are copies of copies.
Logically, it's impossible that modern Christianity resembles Christ's version because he was a practicing Jew.
@Simon: Before lamenting what Christianity has become, perhaps we should reflect on what is was. I'll take modern Christianity any day. Something about Inquisitions make me queasy.
There is no reliable way to know that the Gnostic gospels are more accurate than the canonical gospels. Neither were written during Christ's lifetime (indeed, there is not much to indicate he ever lived) and both contain many contradictions. Additionally, there is much evidence that the versions we have of both are copies of copies.
Logically, it's impossible that modern Christianity resembles Christ's version because he was a practicing Jew.
@Simon: Before lamenting what Christianity has become, perhaps we should reflect on what is was. I'll take modern Christianity any day. Something about Inquisitions make me queasy.
Lyssa,
Forf me, the question of accuracy doesn't arise. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to my use of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures and their historico-mythic-legendary insights, any more than I agonise over which Shakespeare folio is 'accurate' or, indeed, where de Vere, Bacon, Marlowe or Good Queen Bess wrote the plays.
And, of course you are right when you say, "Logically, it's impossible that modern Christianity resembles Christ's version because he was a practicing Jew." The same goes for most things I have learned from the ancients but I am not trying to be them, only me.
You misunderstand my Passiontide tears tho'. I cry for the inhumanity of law and of people to each other. I cry for the outcast, the refugee, the abused. Holy Saturday is a day of absence, of empyyiness, of abandonment. That is why I cry
As for Inquisitions, witch-hunts, pogroms, black lists and secret police, they do not make me 'queasy', they make me F*****G FURIOUS.
For me either (we have the same problem with Buddha). I was responding to Allan's characterizations of what is and is not "real" Christianity and Palzang's assertion that Gnostic texts more closely resemble Christ's actual teachings.
Actually if one looks at it from the point that jesus was a bodhisattva, he was practising taking and giving upon the cross.
"He died for our sins". Really, what the heck does that mean? Somebody explain to me how this sacrifice changes anything. If I am a believer, then I am saved, off the hook for my past deeds, and I slide right into heaven?
Masters in the past have perfected the art of taking and giving, where literally through the force of concentration they have been able to remove suffering and afflication from sentient beings and take it upon themselves, jesus for those who develop faith in him have a root toward the higher realms as it is through these redeeming actions that our own negativity is purified, similar practise is that off the confessional buddha's or vajrasattva practise through great faith and remorse for our actions the said deity helps purify us of these non-virtues i suspect it is the same with jesus.
One of my favorite movies was "The Last Temptation of Christ"
Yeah, I was thinking of the William Dafoe movie too... still have not seen it, I really should.
As far as Mel Gibson's movie is concerned... I think he's an ok actor/driector, however I find the movies he directs to be both very linear and usually with allot of gore, yet missing some functionality.
It's not a bad movie per se, but def. not the best. I think it's sometimes a cheap way to draw attention as a movie by simply showing very explicit violence. Using it so it actually "enhances the movie" that's ok, but I think that was not always the case with The Passion of the Christ imho.
Still it does not fail completely in making it's point, that's for sure.
I enjoyed the movie because I understood it wasn't supposed to be a portrayal of the Gospels, but rather a cinematic version of the stations of the Cross. In fact, I went with my church at the time right after the movie and participated in the stations. It was an excellent experience, and I appreciate it even now, despite my lack of faith at the moment.
Hi,
This is really very good movie about Jesus.This film tells the story of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus , on the day of his crucifixion in Jerusalem.
Comments
You are correct about depressing and graphically violent. Some people said it was too violent. I argue that over time the Christians have so 'sanitized' the crucifixion, that in popular parlance it pretty much bears no resemblance to a death, it's almost more of a 'trial'. Inconvenient and a nuisance.
However, it would have been as horrific and terrible as depicted, and Christians are just not used to seeing that, it has become "a spiritual transformation'', and therefore it has been and is presented as something "liberating and uplifting" as opposed to what it was.
Horrifcally Violent.
Isn't this just what we always do, Les? We romanticise the past, particularly if it was very nasty. So, for example, decades after the War, we use "Dunkirk Spirit" to describe, not an ignominious defeat and scandalous scramble, but a sort of grim resistance. We have transformed the murderous outlaw, Robin Hood, into a folk hero.
We do it to our own lives too. Recognising this and stripping away the deceptive 'spin' may expose us to a colder, harder world but enables us to glimpse the reality.
That post was fantastic to me. Especially when you said; That sentence rings so true it's amazing.
It is.
I saw that film at a time when I was trying to hang on to, and validate, what shred of Christian faith I had left. Instead the movie, and the fact that it was so celebrated, sickened me. If anything it may have eroded my Christianity just a little bit more.
On one hand - i always find it interesting when history is put on film... and certainly the dress, and the portrayal of life in Israel and its cities at that time would - i would say reasonably accurate ...
also - as a linguist i found it interesting to hear aramaic ( the language of much of the hebrew scriptures ) spoken outside the context of a prayer book... and if im REALLY going to be picky - i personally didnt like the quite sinister whispering snarling tone the language was given and the way it leaned towards an arabic breathy sound ... when really aramaic would have sounded more solid - since the influence of Islam via the arabian peninsula would not arrive in israel for quite some time...
what i really really didnt like about it though was this age old horrifically antisemitic portrayal as all jews being hooked nosed evil plotting jesus killers with nothing more to do with their lives than to sin against god and / or non jews...
and i found the portrayal of Judas as being in league with Satan really quite disturbing ... especially as Judas / Judah is hebrew for Jew... the connotations and overtones of that were really unpleasant...
that aside - i also didnt like the attempt to almost intertwine Judaism and christianity ... with the idea that Judaism was some how surpassed or completed by the Christian messiah...
From a jewish perspective - christianity and Judaism share a few things in commen - but a lot of jewish people i know reject the idea of '' judeo christianity ''' ... and when you look below the surface of an abrahamic god its easy to see that Judaism and christianity are poles apart ...
many people really have no idea WHY jews rejected jesus ... and the mel gibson film does nothing to enlighten them... instead it reinforces the old idea that jews rejected jesus almost to be mean - or to hack of the people that believed he was the messiah...
It probably sounds like im being way over the top... but its hard to explain the effect films like this can have on the worlds jews... we have enough problems fighting silly old stereotypes and hatred without influential people like gibson turning the clock back a good few hundred years...
Well to be honest that is kinda the idea of Christianity - that Jesus' life, ministry, and ultimately, sacrifice fulfill the old Covenant and instituted a new one. Which gets me when Christians use passages from the Old Testament to justify all sorts of bigotry. But then Christianity runs contrary to the old Jewish law anyway.
*cough* *cough*
NOOBS
That's the perfect answer!!! Loved that song!! (Leonard Cohen, the singer/songwriter that depressed two generations!!)
I do!
Palzang
Let it go!
Let it go!
We have a life, I hope.
I've no doubt that there was once a Rabbi named Yeshua ben Yoseph (Jesus, son of Joseph) who had some interesting ideas, unwise political asperations and that he came to a bad end like many who dared to cross the Romans.
However, if you're going to try to convince me that after his death he shot bolt upright and crawled out of his tomb like Dracula only to then fly away like Superman...well- I'm afraid that I'm going to have to take issue with that.:skeptical
Who he was and what he was really like, on the other hand, are up for debate. :eek::D
You know - there are lots of theories that wonder if jesus really existed... to be honest - there are lots of strong arguments in favor of his non - existance...
for starters.. many of jesus followers would have been illeterate.. there is nothing i know of that was written down while he was still alive..
- many of the gospels were written hundreds of years in some cases after jesus died.. that gave plenty of time for his legend to spread - and theres no way of knowing that the authors of the later gospels werent just working with the demand for stories about this now famous man god... a bit like the writters of today writing what they think people will want to read - in order to sell the most books...
context - a lot of people forget - that by the time roman occupation came along, the jewish people had been occupied many times.. most recently by the brutal reign of antiochus.. they were made second class citizens in their own land, ruled harshly by who they considered to be a bunch of debaucherous idolatrers ...
the need for a hero, for the promised messiah... to come along and take the jewish people out of this horrible situation and to bring them all the things they had been promised for more than 2000 years before ( their own land, freedom, to be placed as an example to all other nations etc ) ... this need was really really strong.. the jewish people were utterly desparate..
you can imagine - in such a situation that it would not have been hard for some one who wanted an uprising against the jews, to fabricate this man god messiah in order to get people to rebel...
way back in the days before tv or any kind of mass communication.. all youd have to do is get people on your side - willing to lie and say theyd seen or heard this guy and move from village to village saying the same thing --and recruiting others willing to lie .. and in the days when romans were regularly killing people on stakes - it wouldnt be hard to get these people to gather round a random guy - dying on a stake and say he was the messiah theyd all been talking about ...
before dna testing there would have been no way to disprove them...
the other theory is - that jesus was a rebel, some one looking for an uprising whos followers did a clever bit of early pr and blew him way beyond what he actually was in order to get people on thier side... in such an unstable environment - it wouldnt have been hard to get the right looking guy to spout some pre rehearsed religuiious stuff .. annoy the priests to give him a bit of credibility and get the people believeing the messiah had come and that they could now ...
its interesting to note as well that the original jewish idea of the messiah - is not a man god - but a leader, a king, a soldier - with exceptional - but very human skills and abilities who will physically lead the jewish people and eventually the world into paradise... not with religious teachings but with shear ability - and god on his side... hed be more like Elvis or Che Gueverra than a man god ...
also - there have been lots of people throughout jewish history claiming to be the messiah - all have so far been disproved..
also - compare the story of jesus and his teachings to middle and near eastern religions of the time.. it almost looks like some one has mixed and matched... to me - there is so little originality in the story or teachings of jesus that it is highly possible that he is nothing more than a complete fabrication....
Of the four canonical gospels, the first was written shortly after the destruction of the second temple, and the last was written around 120 CE.
Authors didn't make money by selling books to a large market in those days. It wasn't possible to mass produce books until the printing press was invented. :-)
Every religious text is written by a particular community and represents what that community wants to believe.
The only place where Jesus is mentioned outside of Christian literature is a passage in Josephus, and that appears to be a later forgery. On the other hand, there appear to be three different early traditions that claimed Jesus as their founder. That would be three different groups of people in three different geographical locations who would have to get together and conspire to lie about a common founding figure. Since they also created three different sets of narratives about Jesus, it seems as though they weren't collaborating.
There are people mentioned in passing by ancient authors who aren't as well attested as Jesus, and no one doubts that they existed.
I agree with everything else you wrote, Channah. Each of the gospels is a literary production based on previous literary productions and written to explain and teach a particular view of Jesus. Mel Gibson's film is also a literary production. When it came out, someone timed the various scenes and discovered that only about fifteen minutes of the film were taken from the gospels. Much of the rest came from written records of visions experienced by a rather anti-semitic nun who lived in the nineteenth century. So the film was produced in the same way the gospels were; it represents the beliefs of Mel Gibson's religious community (a conservative group of break away Catholics), it uses previous literary productionsas raw materials, and it organizes and extends those materials to teach a particular set of beliefs.
BTW, the texts of all religions were created this way.
You made some interesting points.. and they made me think about why im williing to believe in Buddha and Krishna but seriously doubt the existance of Jesus... even though ..as you said both have the same issues with regards to texts, preaching to a largely illetarate audiance etc ...
I didnt know the thing you mentioned about mel gibsons film although it does explain a lot...
its obvious that Gibson had his own agenda when making this film - and historical accuracy wasnt one of them... it made me think though of the way that jews have been portrayed in historical films in the past... take the likes of ben hur and the other films that were made in the 50s and 60s and before...
It seems to me the jewish people have always been portrayed as easily lead, slightly backwards people who didnt really get what god was trying to tell them and who had quite a merry old time killing jesus ... and really really got it wrong by rejecting him as the messiah ...
as I mentioned in the previous post - the only thing i liked about the Gibson film was the language and the costumes ... the rest could have come right out of the middle ages in terms of its portrayel of jews ...
The point I'm making is that no modern religion exists in its original form. It's part of the myth of every religious denomination that their version of their religion is the original version, or it represents the teachings of their god or their founder exactly as the teachings were originally delivered. When we are able to examine some historical record and discover how a religion was originally practiced or see how the teachings evolved, this never turns out to be the case.
The earliest books of the Torah reached their final form around 700 BC. When they describe the world at the time of Moses, they describe it inaccurately. When other books describe the kingdom of David and Solomon, the evidence indicates that they are describing it inaccurately. Generally speaking, when a book of the bible describes a period prior to the time the book was written, the description is historically inaccurate.
Mel Gibson's film portrays the basic, core myth of the religion he grew up in and that he obviously practices and believes in. I don't mean Christianity, I mean nineteenth century Catholicism. It's not really fair to say that he has an agenda. His "agenda" is exactly the agenda of the authors of the Torah, and the authors of the gospels, and the authors of the various Buddhist suttas and sutras. He's telling us what he believes is true. His film is a religious document in every sense of the word. He has been as accurate as he can be without violating the truth that he believes in.
One final point; don't make the mistake of believing that writing something down ensures its accurate transmission. We have lots of examples of written texts being edited, "corrected", added to, etc. In fact, I'm not sure that written texts are any more reliable than oral texts. The only clear advantage that a written text has is that it can be buried for hundreds of years and rediscovered.
Irony amuses me.
According to whom? Are there sworn affidavits to this or are you going by a few accounts written decades after his death?
You know, having read the Bible a time or two and the Gospels several times I don't recall Jesus himself ever actually stating that he was ether God or the son of God. As I recall he seemed to prefer to call himself Son of Man.
To my knowledge there isn't a single mention of him outside of the Bible anywhere in history, save for Josephus, who's account is largely suspected of being a forgery.
If you want to hang around here and discuss things in a polite respectful manner then welcome, but save the preaching. I've had enough of it to last three lifetimes.
I'll read those, if you'll read Misquoting Jesus first.
They died for what they believed.
That's a very different thing altogether.
You are simply regurgitating Strobel's arguments. I read both of his Case books, and they are full of fallacious reasoning. He simply interviewed a bunch of theists in order to demonstrate that God exists and then he interviewed a bunch of Christians in order to demonstrate the divinity of Christ. His inquiry was neither objective nor scientific.
Also, CS Lewis's argument that Christ was either God or crazy is a false dichotomy. It puts aside many other options. For example, he could have been misquoted, misinterpreted or mistaken (due to a profound spiritual experience).
A Buddhist forum is hardly the best place to proselytize. There are literally thousands of other internet forums that are available for all of this college freshman argument that one could ever hope for. If you are going to add anything useful, stop parroting Strobel and Lewis, et.al., and give a fresh perspective. The old arguments aren't just boring, they are unconvincing.
You came. You trolled. You left. It's been a few days and there's no further sign of you, so I don't expect you to read this. Nevertheless, I want to thank you for the opportunity to practice Buddhism. I found your posts irritating, and that gave me something to work with. Clearly, the three poisons of greed, anger, and delusion are as much at work in me as they are in you.
I understand your feelings of sin and powerlessness. I don't have them now, but I have had them. I understand the strong need to turn to some higher power in order to be forgiven and released. I hope you have this comfort for as long as you need it.
After thinking it over, I've decided that I really don't mind your posts. In making them, you had to do some minimal reading of the other posts in the threads you trolled in, and in the process you exposed yourself to some Buddhist ideas. It's always possible that in looking for ways to give offense, you will inadvertently stumble across a path that leads to salvation. And that, brother, is worth any irritation you may cost me.
Your brother in foolishness,
Ren Galskap
I would crack a joke, but...
But if that's proof he didn't exist, then the same could be said of the Buddha. Undoubtedly half of what was written is crap - the same is true of Buddhism and every other religion. That doesn't mean Jesus, the man, the historical figure, didn't exist.
The stuff 'bout him being the son of God and all that? Yeah, debateable.
Edit- well crap! RenGalskap beat me to it.
...I guess I'll be crying a lot more now that I'm going to hell.
Exactly - the notion that all sinners go to hell, is misunderstood christanity. One of the great points in jesus dying on the cross for ALL humans sins, is to empower christians to practice his loving teachings, not out of fear of hell and punishments, but out of a free will and compassion. You dont love your neighbours because god says you have to or else..... but because you really beleive its the right thing to do - and honetsly wants to practice the christian path of compassion.
I think its very sad, that movies and bad semipriests seem to have convinced most of the population that, acording to christianity, you go to hell if you sin, or just dont beleive - That is NOT christianity at ALL. :winkc:
Big love
Allan
Unfortunately, that is, in fact, Christianity. It may not be your interpretation of scripture, but it's certainly a reasonable one given the text and the one accepted by all the major sects. The New Testament is full of the Hell doctrine, so those who believe it to be accurate can be forgiven for espousing this view.
With deep regret, I must agree that this is what much of "Churchianity" has become. It is what we might call a hemeneutic of exclusion, whereas there exists, at the margins of Christianity, a hermeneutic of inclusion.
In the same way as the many Buddhist texts on the hell realms, it is quite possible to read the escatology of the New Testament or the revanchism of the Tanakh as metaphorical and psychological rather than literal. Literalism is the curse of the reading classes.
@ Thought of Thoughht:
I am glad you cried. I'm sure I would, too. But I also cried at La Vita e Bella and quite a few other films. I can't be sure about The Passion because I don't like slash movies so haven't watched it. I have cried on Good Friday and Holy Saturday tho'.
I think the point here is that the way Christianity is practiced by most people who call themselves Christians has very little to do with what Christ actually taught, and most of that never found its way into the Bible. You have to check out the Gnostic books for that.
Palzang
There is no reliable way to know that the Gnostic gospels are more accurate than the canonical gospels. Neither were written during Christ's lifetime (indeed, there is not much to indicate he ever lived) and both contain many contradictions. Additionally, there is much evidence that the versions we have of both are copies of copies.
Logically, it's impossible that modern Christianity resembles Christ's version because he was a practicing Jew.
@Simon: Before lamenting what Christianity has become, perhaps we should reflect on what is was. I'll take modern Christianity any day. Something about Inquisitions make me queasy.
Lyssa,
Forf me, the question of accuracy doesn't arise. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to my use of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures and their historico-mythic-legendary insights, any more than I agonise over which Shakespeare folio is 'accurate' or, indeed, where de Vere, Bacon, Marlowe or Good Queen Bess wrote the plays.
And, of course you are right when you say, "Logically, it's impossible that modern Christianity resembles Christ's version because he was a practicing Jew." The same goes for most things I have learned from the ancients but I am not trying to be them, only me.
You misunderstand my Passiontide tears tho'. I cry for the inhumanity of law and of people to each other. I cry for the outcast, the refugee, the abused. Holy Saturday is a day of absence, of empyyiness, of abandonment. That is why I cry
As for Inquisitions, witch-hunts, pogroms, black lists and secret police, they do not make me 'queasy', they make me F*****G FURIOUS.
For me either (we have the same problem with Buddha). I was responding to Allan's characterizations of what is and is not "real" Christianity and Palzang's assertion that Gnostic texts more closely resemble Christ's actual teachings.
This is why I much prefer what Christianity has become. I find modern Christianity distasteful, but at least they've stopped torturing heretics.
It would be more productive if your statement of disagreement were accompanied by a refutation of the argument.
Masters in the past have perfected the art of taking and giving, where literally through the force of concentration they have been able to remove suffering and afflication from sentient beings and take it upon themselves, jesus for those who develop faith in him have a root toward the higher realms as it is through these redeeming actions that our own negativity is purified, similar practise is that off the confessional buddha's or vajrasattva practise through great faith and remorse for our actions the said deity helps purify us of these non-virtues i suspect it is the same with jesus.
As far as Mel Gibson's movie is concerned... I think he's an ok actor/driector, however I find the movies he directs to be both very linear and usually with allot of gore, yet missing some functionality.
It's not a bad movie per se, but def. not the best. I think it's sometimes a cheap way to draw attention as a movie by simply showing very explicit violence. Using it so it actually "enhances the movie" that's ok, but I think that was not always the case with The Passion of the Christ imho.
Still it does not fail completely in making it's point, that's for sure.
This is really very good movie about Jesus.This film tells the story of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus , on the day of his crucifixion in Jerusalem.