Death comes regardless, Jesus chooses suffering and death.
The suffering was meaningless to his final act of salvation. He didn't need to be whipped, he didn't need to be crowned with thorns. All he needed to do was sacrifice himself to God, and he did that using the Cross.
Quote:
Gibson may be extremely problematic, but what you are arguing now is no less problematic. If nailing oneself to a cross and dying there were pleasant, we might all do it.
Would you stop putting words in my ****ing mouth? I never said it was pleasant. I never said anything at all along those lines. I said that the scourging was soteriologically meaningless ?_AND IT WAS. It was the sacrifice that mattered, all the rest is just filler.
Second, I would like to take this time to bear witness to the thousands if not millions who have died at the hands of Christians
I think Alchemedies noted an itty bitty thing about Stalin's atrocities earlier---let me add Pol Pott, and Mr. Mao to that list. Nobody, but nobody, kills like the pagans.
Anyway.....I think I went and saw the show---when I got back home I looked at my ticket---I may have screwed up and seen The Passion of Chris instead. Oh well.
For the Pagans (and I use that term VERY loosly) on these formus, don't bother seeing this movie, you WILL NOT get it. If you don't know The Lord, it will go right over your head. Read carefully: for a Christian, the EXCESSIVE beatings, et al, will signify what you have, and continue to do, as a sinner, to Christ. It gave me a bit of a pause. The whole Satan thing creeped me out, doting on the incubus while Christ is getting the shit beat out Him. There's a crane shot of Satan realizing that the game is up, near the end, edited for maximum effect. Granted, it wasn't someone strapped to table having his small intestines wound up on a reel, a la The Cell, but it was disturbing all the same. All in all, you get the picture---Mel is no Orson Wells but I think he'll get better.
I've also noticed on this forum that there is PROFOUND ignorance on the doctrine of Christ. Metaphysically Christ has done (all other things equal) what NO OTHER RELIGION claims to have done. As I understand the Christian message, the Incarnation united a fully human nature and the divine nature in one person for the EXPRESS purpose of reconciliation between a holy God and fallen human nature. The crucifixion accomplished the possibility of reconciliation, and the resurrection accomplished the possibility of restoration of eternal communion with God, both necessary events in the Christian scheme of salvation. You gotta love it.
The suffering was meaningless to his final act of salvation. He didn't need to be whipped, he didn't need to be crowned with thorns. All he needed to do was sacrifice himself to God, and he did that using the Cross.
Actually, he did.
If Jesus was who he claimed to be (the Jewish Messiah) then his life had to fulfill all the Messianic prophecies in the Bible.
Including Isaiah 50:
6 I gave my back to those who strike,
and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard;
I hid not my face
from disgrace and spitting.
And Isaiah 53:
3 He was despised and rejected_by men;
a man of sorrows,_and acquainted with_grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4_Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5_But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
For the Pagans (and I use that term VERY loosly) on these formus, don't bother seeing this movie, you WILL NOT get it. If you don't know The Lord, it will go right over your head.
I wouldn't go that far. It's more accurate to say non-Christians won't get some aspects of the film. I've seen it with non-Christians, and the opening scene in Gethsemane (with the snake) went right over their heads. But to me, a Christian, that's one of the best scenes in the film.
The beginning of Gibson's film alludes to the first "Beginning', in yet another Garden, when the need for redemption was born.
(I don't want to explain further for those that haven't seen it yet.)
I wouldn't go that far. It's more accurate to say non-Christians won't get some aspects of the film. I've seen it with non-Christians, and the opening scene in Gethsemane (with the snake) went right over their heads. But to me, a Christian, that's one of the best scenes in the film.
The beginning of Gibson's film alludes to the first "Beginning', in yet another Garden, when the need for redemption was born.
(I don't want to explain further for those that haven't seen it yet.)
The Gospel of John came out last October, and was a word for word rendition from John's Gospel.
AFAIK, Gibson has never claimed The Passion is "word-for-word". In the 20/20 interview, he openly stated it was "his vision" and that he "filled in the blanks" in many scenes.
So it's not EXACTLY from the Gospels. It's a movie. And to a believer, it's a great, subtle nod to the Genesis account of the Fall of Man.
Yeah, it's definitely Gibson's vision. I'm with Kirkland, Mel seems to get off on torture. But it's interesting to me that so many Christians have taken this disgusting movie into their hearts. Especially when Mel believes that all Protestants are going to hell.
A very good point Segovius, and one I have overlooked I must admit. Although I did mention in my "review" that Gibson was necessarily short with "what the resurrection looked like", I think it is fair and right to say that the resurrection itself is ultimately what his life was about.
Perhaps the movie could have focused less on the death and more on what is documented as having happened afterward. But I still feel it is important with any movie of this kind to show some measure of what the suffering must've been like (even if not to the extreme Gibson did). That was all part of the sacrifice, ultimately.
Perhaps the movie could have focused less on the death and more on what is documented as having happened afterward.
Then it would not have been a passion play. The entire point of a passion play is the crucifixion. Traditional plays don't even deal with the Resurrection.
The crcuifixion was only 'what Jesus life was about' from the Church's pov - and the Catholic Church at that.
Yes. I have little time or respect for Protestant theology, particularly soteriology. It's dreadfully thin stuff, and quite boring. I'll stand with the apostolic churches (Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans).
Quote:
For some Christians, the resurrection is 'what it's all about' - in fact I think Catholicism is overly obsessed with suffering angle and this film is just another example of it.
Again, it's not the suffering that matters, it is the sacrifice. No sacrifice means no salvation. The Resurrection didn't save us, it merely pointed to that which we can look forward to.
Quote:
Where's the celebration?
We celebrate that which Christ has given us by respecting and recognizing that which he did. I have little time and see little merit in feel good soteriology that attempts to move the moment of salvation back three days.
Quote:
Where's the 'Good News' ?
The Good News is laid out point by point in the words and actions of every Mass, culminating with the Eucharist, in which we participate in and receive the grace of the sacrifice of Christ through the consumption of his body and blood.
Quote:
These can never be just the words of a wise Rabbi for no such teaching existed amongst the Jews of Jesus time - his new law of 'love your neighbour' was a revolutionary original thought (whether you think it divine or not is irrelevant) that changed the course of history and civilization.
Actually, history records several contemporaneous rabbis offering up similar reinterpretations of the Decalogue, though since they didn't challenge the power structure of the day, they met with far less resistance. Jesus' statements match well with many of those in the Talmud.
The Gospel of John came out last October, and was a word for word rendition from John's Gospel.
GAH! Why??? Of all the Gospels, none of which can be considered precisely what happened, John is the most far afield. Better to do a word for word of Mark, which is probably the most historically accurate of the four.
It's from Genesis ? something to the effect of God saying to Eve: "And between your offspring and the snake I will put animosity. And he will bite at your heel and you shall crush his head," not a perfect rendition, but I don't have a Bible at work.
It's in, I believe, one of the first three chapters of Genesis, and is looked upon by those who believe in prophecy as the first prophetic reference to the coming Messiah.
It ties into the notion of Mary as the new Eve who brings into the world salvation as the birth-giver of God incarnate, just as the first Eve brought sin into the world through her lack of fidelity to God. Which is a bit misogynistic. Traditional images of the Fatima vision of Mary picture her standing atop the broken body of a serpent, another reference to this verse.
For the Pagans (and I use that term VERY loosly) on these formus, don't bother seeing this movie, you WILL NOT get it.
Which is the great weakness of the film. You do not take out with you, theologically, anything that you did not go in with.
Quote:
I've also noticed on this forum that there is PROFOUND ignorance on the doctrine of Christ. Metaphysically Christ has done (all other things equal) what NO OTHER RELIGION claims to have done.
Not really. Divine God-Man cults and mystery religions abounded in the BCE/CE world. Including ones which had all the hallmarks of the Jesus story (divine birth, self-sacrifice, return to glorious life). Mithrias is a fairly well-known pseudo-Christ story.
That doesn't make Christianity any more or less true, though. It stands or falls upon its own merits.
I don't quite understand why it was all necessary either, but there are a lot of things I don't understand in this life.
The Suffering Servant was certainly a prefiguration of the coming Messiah, but that interpretation was not (and still quite isn't) a universal one. Also, given the Christian practice amongst Gospel writers to embellish their tales in order to link them thematically with Jewish "prophecy" or with the life of a great Jewish hero, there is the chance that we hear stories of scourging not because he was scourged all that badly, but because it draws the parallels that Mark was seeking to draw.
And regardless, the point is the sacrifice. Jesus was the high priest sacrificing the lamb of God to God (parallels of the Abraham and Isaac story). The only part of the process that matters is the sacrifice itself. It was not necessary in Judaism to make the lamb suffer, nor was it for the Lamb.
GAH! Why??? Of all the Gospels, none of which can be considered precisely what happened, John is the most far afield. Better to do a word for word of Mark, which is probably the most historically accurate of the four.
Kirk
I've heard the same company that produced TGOJ is currently working on The Gospel of Mark, to be released next year.
For some Christians, the resurrection is 'what it's all about' - in fact I think Catholicism is overly obsessed with suffering angle and this film is just another example of it. Too many Catholic Churches (especially here in France) are dark, sombre and filled with a focus on death and suffering. Whether it's Christ's or the sinner's in the hereafter. Where's the celebration ? Where's the 'Good News' ? Give me a Pentecostal Church any day (if I absolutely have to have one).
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Though I must say here in Canada and in the parishes I've visited in the US, the masses that I've gone to never really came across as being dark, or sombre. The parish that I go to, and have gone to for most of my life is actually quite upbeat in their services.
As Kirkland pointed out, Catholicism and Christianity as a whole don't place singular focus on the *suffering* of Christ. It's important, yes, but it's not the central, overrriding issue. What the overriding issue is, in my mind, was His willing sacrifice. Echoing what was said earlier in this thread, all of the Catholic parishes I've gone to or seen have as a central feature a statue of Christ hanging from the cross -- not of Christ being whipped or beaten.
Comments
Originally posted by norfa
....
I'd like to take this moment to ask back for the minutes of my life wasted in reading such drivel.
Originally posted by Matsu
Death comes regardless, Jesus chooses suffering and death.
The suffering was meaningless to his final act of salvation. He didn't need to be whipped, he didn't need to be crowned with thorns. All he needed to do was sacrifice himself to God, and he did that using the Cross.
Gibson may be extremely problematic, but what you are arguing now is no less problematic. If nailing oneself to a cross and dying there were pleasant, we might all do it.
Would you stop putting words in my ****ing mouth? I never said it was pleasant. I never said anything at all along those lines. I said that the scourging was soteriologically meaningless ?_AND IT WAS. It was the sacrifice that mattered, all the rest is just filler.
Kirk
Originally posted by Matsu
Kirkland, I don't think you get it.
Jesus is a goat.
That's lamb Matsu.
Originally posted by norfa
Second, I would like to take this time to bear witness to the thousands if not millions who have died at the hands of Christians
I think Alchemedies noted an itty bitty thing about Stalin's atrocities earlier---let me add Pol Pott, and Mr. Mao to that list. Nobody, but nobody, kills like the pagans.
Anyway.....I think I went and saw the show---when I got back home I looked at my ticket---I may have screwed up and seen The Passion of Chris instead. Oh well.
For the Pagans (and I use that term VERY loosly) on these formus, don't bother seeing this movie, you WILL NOT get it. If you don't know The Lord, it will go right over your head. Read carefully: for a Christian, the EXCESSIVE beatings, et al, will signify what you have, and continue to do, as a sinner, to Christ. It gave me a bit of a pause. The whole Satan thing creeped me out, doting on the incubus while Christ is getting the shit beat out Him. There's a crane shot of Satan realizing that the game is up, near the end, edited for maximum effect. Granted, it wasn't someone strapped to table having his small intestines wound up on a reel, a la The Cell, but it was disturbing all the same. All in all, you get the picture---Mel is no Orson Wells but I think he'll get better.
I've also noticed on this forum that there is PROFOUND ignorance on the doctrine of Christ. Metaphysically Christ has done (all other things equal) what NO OTHER RELIGION claims to have done. As I understand the Christian message, the Incarnation united a fully human nature and the divine nature in one person for the EXPRESS purpose of reconciliation between a holy God and fallen human nature. The crucifixion accomplished the possibility of reconciliation, and the resurrection accomplished the possibility of restoration of eternal communion with God, both necessary events in the Christian scheme of salvation. You gotta love it.
Originally posted by Kirkland
The suffering was meaningless to his final act of salvation. He didn't need to be whipped, he didn't need to be crowned with thorns. All he needed to do was sacrifice himself to God, and he did that using the Cross.
Actually, he did.
If Jesus was who he claimed to be (the Jewish Messiah) then his life had to fulfill all the Messianic prophecies in the Bible.
Including Isaiah 50:
6 I gave my back to those who strike,
and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard;
I hid not my face
from disgrace and spitting.
And Isaiah 53:
3 He was despised and rejected_by men;
a man of sorrows,_and acquainted with_grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4_Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5_But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
-------------------------------------------------------
I don't quite understand why it was all necessary either, but there are a lot of things I don't understand in this life.
Originally posted by dmz
For the Pagans (and I use that term VERY loosly) on these formus, don't bother seeing this movie, you WILL NOT get it. If you don't know The Lord, it will go right over your head.
I wouldn't go that far. It's more accurate to say non-Christians won't get some aspects of the film. I've seen it with non-Christians, and the opening scene in Gethsemane (with the snake) went right over their heads. But to me, a Christian, that's one of the best scenes in the film.
The beginning of Gibson's film alludes to the first "Beginning', in yet another Garden, when the need for redemption was born.
(I don't want to explain further for those that haven't seen it yet.)
Originally posted by Frank777
I wouldn't go that far. It's more accurate to say non-Christians won't get some aspects of the film. I've seen it with non-Christians, and the opening scene in Gethsemane (with the snake) went right over their heads. But to me, a Christian, that's one of the best scenes in the film.
The beginning of Gibson's film alludes to the first "Beginning', in yet another Garden, when the need for redemption was born.
(I don't want to explain further for those that haven't seen it yet.)
And when did that scene happen in the Gospels?
Originally posted by BRussell
And when did that scene happen in the Gospels?
The Gospel of John came out last October, and was a word for word rendition from John's Gospel.
AFAIK, Gibson has never claimed The Passion is "word-for-word". In the 20/20 interview, he openly stated it was "his vision" and that he "filled in the blanks" in many scenes.
So it's not EXACTLY from the Gospels. It's a movie. And to a believer, it's a great, subtle nod to the Genesis account of the Fall of Man.
Stop acting like a fundamentalist.
Yeah, it's definitely Gibson's vision. I'm with Kirkland, Mel seems to get off on torture. But it's interesting to me that so many Christians have taken this disgusting movie into their hearts. Especially when Mel believes that all Protestants are going to hell.
Perhaps the movie could have focused less on the death and more on what is documented as having happened afterward. But I still feel it is important with any movie of this kind to show some measure of what the suffering must've been like (even if not to the extreme Gibson did). That was all part of the sacrifice, ultimately.
Originally posted by Moogs
Perhaps the movie could have focused less on the death and more on what is documented as having happened afterward.
Then it would not have been a passion play. The entire point of a passion play is the crucifixion. Traditional plays don't even deal with the Resurrection.
Kirk
Originally posted by segovius
The crcuifixion was only 'what Jesus life was about' from the Church's pov - and the Catholic Church at that.
Yes. I have little time or respect for Protestant theology, particularly soteriology. It's dreadfully thin stuff, and quite boring. I'll stand with the apostolic churches (Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans).
For some Christians, the resurrection is 'what it's all about' - in fact I think Catholicism is overly obsessed with suffering angle and this film is just another example of it.
Again, it's not the suffering that matters, it is the sacrifice. No sacrifice means no salvation. The Resurrection didn't save us, it merely pointed to that which we can look forward to.
Where's the celebration?
We celebrate that which Christ has given us by respecting and recognizing that which he did. I have little time and see little merit in feel good soteriology that attempts to move the moment of salvation back three days.
Where's the 'Good News' ?
The Good News is laid out point by point in the words and actions of every Mass, culminating with the Eucharist, in which we participate in and receive the grace of the sacrifice of Christ through the consumption of his body and blood.
These can never be just the words of a wise Rabbi for no such teaching existed amongst the Jews of Jesus time - his new law of 'love your neighbour' was a revolutionary original thought (whether you think it divine or not is irrelevant) that changed the course of history and civilization.
Actually, history records several contemporaneous rabbis offering up similar reinterpretations of the Decalogue, though since they didn't challenge the power structure of the day, they met with far less resistance. Jesus' statements match well with many of those in the Talmud.
Kirk
Originally posted by Frank777
The Gospel of John came out last October, and was a word for word rendition from John's Gospel.
GAH! Why??? Of all the Gospels, none of which can be considered precisely what happened, John is the most far afield. Better to do a word for word of Mark, which is probably the most historically accurate of the four.
Kirk
Originally posted by BRussell
And when did that scene happen in the Gospels?
It's from Genesis ? something to the effect of God saying to Eve: "And between your offspring and the snake I will put animosity. And he will bite at your heel and you shall crush his head," not a perfect rendition, but I don't have a Bible at work.
It's in, I believe, one of the first three chapters of Genesis, and is looked upon by those who believe in prophecy as the first prophetic reference to the coming Messiah.
It ties into the notion of Mary as the new Eve who brings into the world salvation as the birth-giver of God incarnate, just as the first Eve brought sin into the world through her lack of fidelity to God. Which is a bit misogynistic. Traditional images of the Fatima vision of Mary picture her standing atop the broken body of a serpent, another reference to this verse.
Kirk
Originally posted by dmz
For the Pagans (and I use that term VERY loosly) on these formus, don't bother seeing this movie, you WILL NOT get it.
Which is the great weakness of the film. You do not take out with you, theologically, anything that you did not go in with.
I've also noticed on this forum that there is PROFOUND ignorance on the doctrine of Christ. Metaphysically Christ has done (all other things equal) what NO OTHER RELIGION claims to have done.
Not really. Divine God-Man cults and mystery religions abounded in the BCE/CE world. Including ones which had all the hallmarks of the Jesus story (divine birth, self-sacrifice, return to glorious life). Mithrias is a fairly well-known pseudo-Christ story.
That doesn't make Christianity any more or less true, though. It stands or falls upon its own merits.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
It's from Genesis
I know where it's from. I'm just giving Frank a hard time about the faithfulness of this movie to the Gospels.
Originally posted by Frank777
Actually, he did.
If Jesus was who he claimed to be (the Jewish Messiah) then his life had to fulfill all the Messianic prophecies in the Bible.
Including Isaiah 50:
6 I gave my back to those who strike,
and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard;
I hid not my face
from disgrace and spitting.
And Isaiah 53:
3 He was despised and rejected_by men;
a man of sorrows,_and acquainted with_grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4_Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5_But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
-------------------------------------------------------
I don't quite understand why it was all necessary either, but there are a lot of things I don't understand in this life.
The Suffering Servant was certainly a prefiguration of the coming Messiah, but that interpretation was not (and still quite isn't) a universal one. Also, given the Christian practice amongst Gospel writers to embellish their tales in order to link them thematically with Jewish "prophecy" or with the life of a great Jewish hero, there is the chance that we hear stories of scourging not because he was scourged all that badly, but because it draws the parallels that Mark was seeking to draw.
And regardless, the point is the sacrifice. Jesus was the high priest sacrificing the lamb of God to God (parallels of the Abraham and Isaac story). The only part of the process that matters is the sacrifice itself. It was not necessary in Judaism to make the lamb suffer, nor was it for the Lamb.
Kirk
Originally posted by Frank777
I'd like to take this moment to ask back for the minutes of my life wasted in reading such drivel.
Why Frank? Do you react with such indifference to everyone who calls you a fool?
Originally posted by Kirkland
GAH! Why??? Of all the Gospels, none of which can be considered precisely what happened, John is the most far afield. Better to do a word for word of Mark, which is probably the most historically accurate of the four.
Kirk
I've heard the same company that produced TGOJ is currently working on The Gospel of Mark, to be released next year.
Originally posted by segovius
For some Christians, the resurrection is 'what it's all about' - in fact I think Catholicism is overly obsessed with suffering angle and this film is just another example of it. Too many Catholic Churches (especially here in France) are dark, sombre and filled with a focus on death and suffering. Whether it's Christ's or the sinner's in the hereafter. Where's the celebration ? Where's the 'Good News' ? Give me a Pentecostal Church any day (if I absolutely have to have one).
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Though I must say here in Canada and in the parishes I've visited in the US, the masses that I've gone to never really came across as being dark, or sombre. The parish that I go to, and have gone to for most of my life is actually quite upbeat in their services.
As Kirkland pointed out, Catholicism and Christianity as a whole don't place singular focus on the *suffering* of Christ. It's important, yes, but it's not the central, overrriding issue. What the overriding issue is, in my mind, was His willing sacrifice. Echoing what was said earlier in this thread, all of the Catholic parishes I've gone to or seen have as a central feature a statue of Christ hanging from the cross -- not of Christ being whipped or beaten.