Article about The Passion of Christ...

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2003
Article about The Passion of Christ...
10
Wed, 02-11-2004 - 4:02pm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4212782/

While reading this, I had a hard time trying to decide whether to LOL or cry or just shake my head. At first, when I was reading through the article, I said to myself...this guy HAS to be Jewish...otherwise why would he be trying to defend the Jews from a very clear account of their role and behavior in the death of Christ? So

I researched him a bit. The funny thing is that the author, Jon Meacham, is

a very influential and celebrated writer of modern non-fiction. He has

written on the civil rights movement, gun control, the Catholic church's sex

scandals, and most recently a book about Churchill and Roosevelt. He was

raised in the South as a Presbyterian...he still is a communicant (deacon)

in his church in New York and a member of the Order of St. John in

Jerusalem. He appears to have a pretty consistent track record for taking a

very liberal slant on anything he writes. If anything, I'd expect him to

argue a strong case against the Jews in favor of those peace-loving

Palestinians, who of course never would've harmed Jesus and would've lived

at peace with all around them. I'm now very curious as to why he would take

this contrarian point of view. What does it do for him? Is he setting

something up for future use? Or does he just like to play devil's advocate?

This is another installment in the proof that Truth has become utterly

irrelevant to modern man. Truth seems to be nothing more than an

inconvenience that one must successfully "handle" as they proceed on

whatever cause they have embarked upon. In a lot of ways, Truth has the

same properties as gravity. It is always there, it is absolute, it cannot

be changed...but depending on what you want to do with gravity, you can bend

it to your will in many different ways. You can never get rid of gravity

but you can engineer ways around it so it doesn't prevent you from

accomplishing what you've set out to do. So it now has become with Truth.

If Truth happens to agree with your cause, hey great! But Truth is tricky,

so always be prepared to work your way around it if it starts to deviate

from your point of view! Truth is vulnerable because it is so absolute, so

always backstop yourself by having many justifications and explanations

about why the Truth really isn't the Truth, or why the Truth no longer

applies. And by all means, never stand solely on the Truth and demand

immunity, because it will make you just as vulnerable to be explained away

by your opponents as the Truth was, itself. And besides, then when the

Truth favors someone else, you wouldn't have any credibility in attacking

that Truth and likewise demanding that the Truth you stand on cannot be

attacked. So as we now have developed the airplane and anti-gravity chaber

to overpower gravity, so have we developed a system of justification and

contextualization to overpower poor Truth. I think our "rocket boosters"

would be our ability so shift blame/responsibility away from where they

Truthfully lie (as in this case, why not villianize the ancient Romans?

They are no longer here to defend themselves, as are the Jews. This is

textbook liberal blame-shifting to a group that is incapable of disputing

those claims.). Perhaps our courtrooms are the counterpart to the

anti-gravity chamber ;-) It certainly seems that way.

On a side note, the recent stories on Dr. Atkins are another perfect example. A radical

vegetarian/homepathy group somehow obtained his confidential medical records

and leaked them to the press, claiming that he was obese at death and that

he had a history of heart failures. First of all, it is incredibly

unethical as well as patently illegal on the part of all involved in that

"leak". Second of all, they released only the parts of the Truth that

backed their point of view, encouraging people to draw the wrong

conclusions. What they failed to include was that his heart conditions were

the result of cardiomyopathy, a viral condition. It wouldnt' have mattered

if he was a level-5 Vegan, he would've had just as many heart problems, it's

a condition irrelevant to diet or nutrition. Second, the doctors used very

careful language, stating that "at 6 feet, 258 lbs Dr. Atkins would qualify

as obese." Why did they word it that way, you ask? Why tiptoe around it so

carefully? Because he wasn't obese, his weight was not a result of a large

amount of adipose tissue (fat). A large amount of his weight at death was a

result of bloating and fluid retention related to his medical

condition. See? This is an excellent

example of how the Truth of the matter is nothing to be trifled with, but

neither is it a force that cannot be reckoned with as you further your own

agenda. Just put your spin on it first, say it loud enough, say it often

enough, and you will control the preception of Truth, making the absolute

Truth nothing more than a historical footnote. Fascinating, isn't it?

I wouldn't worry too much about Meacham's story on Jesus and the Jews,

though. He's got 2000 yrs of history and a vast majority of believers

stacked against him. This is a sale he's not going to make. The most this

article will amount to is making agnostic/atheist liberals feel more secure

and self-righteous in their ridiculing of Christians and the beliefs they

hold. But they aren't interested in the Truth anyway...so no harm done.

Avatar for sheila3xblessed
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 02-11-2004 - 4:55pm
The man who wrote the article can't truly understand the Bible, in spite of being a church member and probably somewhat knowledgeable about the Bible, because he obviously doesn't believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. He also doesn't realize that some of Christ's words that Gibson quotes which weren't in the gospels are in the Bible elsewhere and that according to Psalm 22, which prophesizes about the crucifixion, the priests were there watching and mocking as Christ died. And Gibson is correct, the Jews did say that Christ's blood was to be on them and their children. As Christians we know that it is the sins of all people which actually required Christ's death so we are all guilty of his death, not the Jews specifically, although they are the ones who were used, just as Judas was the one who betrayed him. Pilate was in a bind. He knew Jesus was not guilty of what the Jewish leaders accused him of, not guilty of death, but if he had refused they would have let Rome knew that he let someone who claimed to be a king go free in their empire, which would have had dire consequences for him. And his wife did have the dream which warned him not to have anything to do with "this just man"--that's in the gospel account. Politicians then were just as petty, vindictive and treacherous as they are now and Pilate and the Jewish leaders were always struggling with each other in their balance of power.



The Catholic and Protestant leaders who have seen this film, as well as my own pastor and other friends' pastors who have seen it, all say it is very Biblically accurate, and in truth that is what makes it so controversial to the world. By no means do they want the truth of Christ to get out to the public as it will in this film. Hope we all get to see it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 8:34am

We have a couple of threads already on this subject................


Mel Gibson's"The Passion" excellent.


http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elinthenews/?msg=5770.1


'Passion' to Debut on 2,000 screens.


http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elinthenews/?msg=5990.1


Chapter 19 - Jesus Sentenced to Death.


http://www.powertochange.ie/gojohn/gospel19.html


1Then Pilate had Jesus flogged with a lead-tipped whip. 2The soldiers made a crown of long, sharp thorns and put it on his head, and they put a royal purple robe on him. 3"Hail! King of the Jews!" they mocked, and they hit him with their fists.

4Pilate went outside again and said to the people, "I am going to bring him out to you now, but understand clearly that I find him not guilty." 5Then Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said, "Here is the man!"

6When they saw him, the leading priests and Temple guards began shouting, "Crucify! Crucify!"

"You crucify him," Pilate said. "I find him not guilty."

7The Jewish leaders replied, "By our laws he ought to die because he called himself the Son of God."

8When Pilate heard this, he was more frightened than ever. 9He took Jesus back into the headquarters again and asked him, "Where are you from?" But Jesus gave no answer. 10"You won't talk to me?" Pilate demanded. "Don't you realize that I have the power to release you or to crucify you?"

11Then Jesus said, "You would have no power over me at all unless it were given to you from above. So the one who brought me to you has the greater sin."

12Then Pilate tried to release him, but the Jewish leaders told him, "If you release this man, you are not a friend of Caesar. Anyone who declares himself a king is a rebel against Caesar."

13When they said this, Pilate brought Jesus out to them again. Then Pilate sat down on the judgment seat on the platform that is called the Stone Pavement (in Hebrew, Gabbatha). 14It was now about noon of the day of preparation for the Passover. And Pilate said to the people,* "Here is your king!"

15"Away with him," they yelled. "Away with him?crucify him!"

"What? Crucify your king?" Pilate asked.

"We have no king but Caesar," the leading priests shouted back.

16Then Pilate gave Jesus to them to be crucified.


 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-12-2004
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 10:22pm
Truth, ha. Truth is relative, it is not absolute. The Passion of Christ portrays one side of the truth. Who's to say that the Jews murdered Jesus, I wasn't there so I can't say what was "true". To blame the Jews, is to take on an attitude similar to Hitler and others who have persecuted the Jews in the past. I commend Mel Gibson for his work in this film.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 11:20pm
Well even the head of the Roman Catholic Church admitted that the movie is factual.... I dont think anyone alive could prove it is or is not...... unless they happen to be 2005 years old.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 02-13-2004 - 11:38am
<< dont think anyone alive could prove it is or is not>>

This is precisely the point--religion is a matter of faith not fact.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 02-13-2004 - 9:39pm
Exactly.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Fri, 02-13-2004 - 11:14pm
And even more to the point - art is not "factual." It cannot be separated from the times in which it is produced. Even if you try to make a work of art that is historically "factual" in the end it will have much more to say about the artist and her / his times than about a far removed subject. That is why assertions that the film is "factual" do nothing to calm people who are upset by the film. It is produced today, addressing audiences today, in today's context.

Having said that, Mel Gibson is one of the best filmmakers around, the trailer looks incredible, and I'm looking foward to seeing the film next weekend.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 02-14-2004 - 1:24pm
Well, there are some facts in religion, like the Bible is probably one of the greatest stories ever written, as is the Torah and the Koran, etc...

I guess it just depends on how deeply set the beliefs are in each person.

I believe in religion, but I don't think that if you do not go to church every Sunday, that you are not a good person. I also don't agree with religion trying to influence your every day decision making in your life. In my opinion, religion is not there to dictate how to live your life, but more perhaps to offer guidance so someone can formulate an opinion on their own.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-14-2004 - 3:08pm

It is also interesting to read about the 'truth' in how Mel Gibson and Icon are 'promoting' this movie.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sun, 02-15-2004 - 12:35pm
I will agree that there are historical facts in the bible. However, statements such as "the Bible is probably one of the greatest stories ever written" is an opinion.

I stand by my statement that religion is a matter of faith, not fact. Christians do not believe in Christ because he was a historical figure, they believe in him because he was the son of God. I don't know of anything that can substantiate this belief. You either believe it or you do not.

I in no way meant to question your belief in religion, and I certainly don't disagree with anything you've said in defense of your belliefs (your last paragraph sounds defensive to me). I happen to know that your are very religious. Although we often disagree, you are never unreasonable.