Preserved Topic: Paul Harvey Passion review (Page 1 of 2)

Just posting in anticipation for film due out next month on Ash Wednesday. I hope it will change many harden hearts. On EWTN
channel, this Thursday nite Mel Gibson will appear to speak of the film. Don't know what time though.

Paul Harvey's Review of the Passion

Paul Harvey Comments on "The Passion" by Mel Gibson

The majority of the media are complaining about this movie. Now Paul Harvey tells "The rest of the story".

Paul Harvey's words:

I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.

I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.

In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.


One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had
been borne voluntarily for love.

At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the
first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way.

Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story andChristians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women.
The greatest right is the right to hear the truth.

We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion."

It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion." You will be as well. Don't miss it!







[This message has been edited by jade (edited 01-19-2004).]

In best Paul Harvey voice...

quote:

---

"And now you know....The..rest of the story!"

---

yikes, I'd say he liked it. Gotta wonder how he knew JEsus said "behold I make all things new" if it was in Hebrew or Aramaic tho, was there subtitles?

Anyhow, yeah, I'll be seeing and hoping it's as good as Paul Harvey thinks it is.

Found this. Its Friday Jan 23 on EWTN in case anyone is interested in viewing it.
Mel Gibson - A new exclusive second interview regarding "The Passion of the Christ"
In the interview, Gibson breaks his silence, speaking for the first time about charges that his film, The Passion of the Christ is anti-Semitic. He talks about his bold vision for the project and his motivation for making the film. Gibson tells Arroyo, ?It reflects my beliefs-I?ve never done that before.?

He also candidly comments on the controversy surrounding the movie, his resistance to altering the film, and his personal commitment to press forward: ?I don?t know if I will ever work again. I?ve said that this is a career killer and it could well be, but that doesn?t matter because I don?t care,? Gibson says in the interview.

Based on biblical accounts, the movie, "The Passion of the Christ," depicts the last 12 hours of Christ?s life on earth and will be released in the U.S. on Ash Wednesday, February 25th.

EWTNews Director, Raymond Arroyo was on set, in Italy during the filming of ?The Passion of the Christ? last year, and is the only broadcast journalist to conduct an extended interview with Mel Gibson about the project.

JKMabry: My understanding is that it is in Aramaiac, Hebrew and Latin with no subtitles - I have no idea how you are supposed to know what is going on but.......

And on the various rumours circulating about the film:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/gibson.asp

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Oh wow.... Now I really do want to see this movie... I hope it gets played near me.

I had heard there were no subtitles but then I just watched this trailer:
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1808434070

I hope that works, I know it's a nasty url. [edit cleaned it up a bit [/edit] But it had subtitles so I'm not sure now.

Emps, yep, I've been following this controversey about the film since the beginning. The question as to who was responsible for Jesus' death has been a heated topic for centuries. Unfortunately, the fact that many have justified their persecution of the Jews on their belief they were responsible does not speak either way towards the answer to the original question. The NT says who killed him and it's there for anyone to see. Mel Gibson has the right answer from the interviews I've heard when he has been asked this question.

I hope that everyone will be able to see this film. It looks excellent.

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 01-20-2004).]

Emperor,

Your site has many inaccuracies. There are 5 rites the Catholic church recgonizes. The Latin traditional is one of them. I have myself attended them and its the same service but in a different language. To attend a latin service is not to be at odds with Rome. Latin services are said all over the world.
And Mel has communicated with the Pope and gave his approval on Mels movie. Mels only intent is to spread the gospel to anyone who wants to hear it. But it seems like its the intent of the very liberal media/press and secular Hollywood to discredit the film because it is a religious film and will make persons look inwards into their souls and reflect. Like all other filmmakers, Mel has the right to make his film, just like the producers who made the terrible film, The Last Temptation of Christ, which depicts Jesus and Mary as lovers which was very offensive to Christianity. I refused to see this movie, because it was offensive to me. I wasn't forced to see it, just like no one will be forced to see The Passion. But the movie should be viewed before its given bad reviews.




[This message has been edited by jade (edited 01-20-2004).]

I am interested in seeing this film. It bothers me that people make judgements about a film before they even see it. (The press and populus alike.) It confused me why there was talk about this film being anti-semetic in the first place. Is there an equation out there that says (Film + Jesus' Death)=Anti-Semetic? At any rate, it is sure to be a fascinating film on it's own merits, regardless of whether one follows the Christian Faith or not. It is likely to be a powerful story, regardless of whether one follows the Christian Faith or not. This is a movie about immersion into one of history's defining events.

jade- I just had a couple of things to say regarding your commentary about The Last Temptation of Christ ***SPOILER ALERT*** This film was a very powerful depiction about the death of Christ. The Mary/Jesus lover thing was not the whole of the story - it was a "what if" exploration on if Jesus had chosen to live his life as a normal human and not give his life for the sins of man. It is an assumption that Jesus was able to exercise free will, and in the last moments before his death he was able to see the results of his choice. Part of the exploration was that Jesus married Mary, and had children. On earth, even as the Son of God, Jesus was human. He was tested by the same temptations as humanity, he was subject to the same emotions. Why should the very human act of loving a woman be held against him? Love is an emotion like anger - if he was allowed one, why not the other? Those are the questions The Last Temptation of Christ offers. ***END SPOILER ALERT*** I just don't want you to pass up a very interesting film based on broad brushstrokes... Too many wonderful films go by the wayside because of it - we pass them by because someone whose opinion we trust more than our own tells us it is offensive or not worth seeing.

MD

I can see your point. Maybe I should of seen the film. And your right that Jesus was totally human and was tempted. I know Jesus the human did not give into temptation. I also know there is a lot of mystery that I will never understand in my lifetime about Jesus.

Aide: Pope Did Not Endorse Gibson Film on Christ

Interesting. I, like Jade, had been under the impression the Pope saw the film and said he approved. It seems there is a question as to whether that is true.

Moon Dancer, I also have never seen the Last Tempation of Christ because of the content. I refused to pay money to see Christ slandered like that. Because of some very specific scenes that I had read about, I was very displeased about this movie because it showed Christ committing "sin".

But if you took away a positive message from the movie, perhaps that is not such a bad thing. You probably weren't adversely affected by the theological issues brought up in the dialogue. I will have to look into exactly what parts I had serious problems with becaue quite honestly I've forgotten them. It's been several years since that one came out.

There is a very obvious issue here of a double standard in Hollywood. When the Last Tempation of Christ came out it was met with vehement disapproval by people of faith. The Hollywood community closed ranks and defended the movie tooth and nail. "How can you condemn a movie you've never seen?" and "Free speech is absolute!" were heard but where are these voices now that Gibson's movie is being shut out? I have heard no major defense of this movie from Hollywood per se. Why? Again it should be obvious and I guess I just wanted to rant a bit about it.

. . : slicePuzzle

Yes I did hear the same info on the Pope story. Maybe Mel will say something of it on Friday nite if the pontiff gave approval or not.

This isn't Paul Havey's Words: see http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/17/202149.shtml

They are spoken by Keith Fournier, a Catholic Supporter of the movie and not Paul Harvey.

Only two points -

1) Bugs - I agree wholeheartedly that the lack of defense for this film is absurd, and I also agree that the reasons are obvious, and an unfortunate product of 'PC' yet again...

2) The Last Temptation of Christ is, as MD said, an exploration of "what-if" regarding the life of Jesus.

It is not a "slander" of him as a person/diety/what-have-you.

It does not say "jesus did [this]". It is not about sexual temptation.

It simply explores the possibilities outside the scope of rigid religious dogma, while not actually saying that said dogma is incorrect. It incorporates many scenarios which are considered by many scholars to be definate possibilities, and carries it a step farther by saying that, yes - jesus *is* the son of god, and his actions are a strong factor in determining the fate of humanity by showing what might have been had he not chosen to die on the cross. It is, in all actuality, far more *pro* christian than it is anti-christian, as it confirms the importance of christ. It simply takes a very non PC look at some details, and some purely imaginary looks at various tangents.

Willem Defoe as Jesus, and Harvey Keitel as Judas is just a dream come true as far as an acting combination.

*don't* discount this movie!

Jade: The catholic traditionalist movement that they're talking about though is one that is not recognised by the Church. They're called the Society of Pope Pius IX. They lot of them were excommunicated in the 60's (or was it the 70's?) for teaching a dogma that goes against the Second Vatican Council. These days they're more a cult than a 'church' per se. I know this becuase I have friends who are/were members of this group...and they like to wave around the fact that Mel Gibson is a member.

joelblaylock, thanks for the correction.

DL, thanks for the info on the Last Temptation of Christ. As time permits, I will take a closer look at the movie and get back to you.

You know how I put certain things in my oven to bake, there's no telling how long they take to cook, but most of them do finish in their right time For instance, I will still get to the Cahill book about the Jews because I know you recommended it highly and the one about the Irish was stellar.

. . : slicePuzzle

Of course, by now, the 3rd and 4th books in that series (there were 5 planned) are out now.

3rd - Desire of the Everlasting Hills - the world before and after Jesus (not finished with this one yet)

4th - Sailing the Wine Dark Seas - why the Greeks matter (haven't started this one yet, just got it)

This just in: 'It is as it was' - Pope's verdict on Christ film

. . : slicePuzzle

Jewish Leaders Slam Mel Gibson's 'Passion' Film

quote:

---

He added, "The film is as bad as it can be. It portrays the Jews as bloodthirsty ... He takes every opportunity to (blame) the Jews. .... What makes this dangerous is that he is a genius of his art and by making it as painful as it is, your catharsis and anger rise. ... The Vatican may have absolved the Jews of responsibility for the death but not Mr Gibson."

---

This kind of review really bothers me. It is *completely* wrong for anyone to persecute Jews for Christ's death but that does not mean that the Jews of Christ's day (a Jew himself lest we forget) didn't have a hand in it. What are they wanting to have done? Not tell history as we know it to be? Would that make them happy? Or are they saying that no Jew had *any* involvement in Christ's death at all?

. . : slicePuzzle

More developments - Vatican denial and another mention of the ant-semitism:

quote:

---

Mystery of Pope's 'approval' of Gibson film

Austen Ivereigh
Saturday January 24, 2004
The Guardian

Controversy has broken out in the Vatican over whether the Pope has given his approval to Mel Gibson's film about the crucifixion, The Passion of Christ.

The issue is whether he endorsed the film with the comment that "it is as it was" after two private showings, accompanied by his Polish secretary, Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, last month.

He meant, presumably, that the film was an accurate representation of the crucifixion as told in the Gospels.

That is how the producers of the film, which is publicly released next month, have taken the comment. One, Steve McEveety, told the Wall Street Journal that the archbishop had told him what the Pope had said.

As such it was a coup for Gibson, an ultra-traditional Catholic who has been working to counter the view of US experts on Catholic-Jewish relations that the film reverts to an anti-semitic view of the Jews as responsible for Christ's death.

A series of private screenings in Rome at the College of the Legionaries of Christ, a body of traditionalists in communion with the Pope, has resulted in a series of endorsements by curial heavyweights and theologians.

But two of America's most prominent Jewish leaders, who managed to see a copy of the film, said yesterday that they regarded it as incendiary and anti-semitic.

No sooner had the Pope's alleged remark been reported than some in the Vatican rushed to deny it and others insisted it was correct.

While the US Catholic News Service was quoting one official as denying that the Pope had said any such thing, another apparently well-placed official was confirming it to the American National Catholic Reporter.

Archbishop Dziwisz himself finally said publicly that the Pope had not expressed an opinion, because he never commented on art.

But that seems to have been contradicted by an email from the official papal spokesman, Joaquín Navarro-Valls, whose task is to clarify such matters.

On Tuesday Mel Gibson's infuriated production company, Icon Productions, released an email from Dr Navarro-Valls which said: "Nobody can deny it. So keep mentioning it as the authorised point of reference.

"I would try to make the words 'It is as it was' the leitmotif in any discussion on the film."

The email ended: "Repeat the words again and again and again."

Publicly Dr Navarro-Valls is sticking to the official line, that the message was "not authentic". But investigation showed that the email address was his, and that it had been sent from a Vatican server.

Dr Navarro-Valls's first public statement on Thursday confirmed that the Pope had seen the film, and described it as "a cinematographic transposition of the historical event of the passion of Jesus Christ according to the accounts of the Gospel", which is more or less what the Pope is supposed to have said.

But he added: "It is a common practice of the Holy Father not to express public opinions on artistic works," leaving open the possibility that the Pope had acted unusually. He neither confirmed nor denied the papal remark.

Mr McEveety met Archbishop Dziwisz in the company of Jan Michelini, who worked as an assistant producer on the film, and his father Alberto, a well-known Italian journalist and politician.

Alberto Michelini and Dr Navarro-Valls are both leading members of the traditionalist organisation Opus Dei, and Jan and his twin sisters were the first babies baptised by John Paul after he became Pope.

That connection explains how Mr McEveety managed to secure the private papal screening, and the subsequent meeting with the archbishop.

Almost nobody emerges from the debacle with credit, and accusations of bad faith are surfacing.

Did the Pope really say it, and if so, have his officials lied? If the remark was supposed to be private, has Icon Productions abused an ailing Pope's confidence by publicising it?

Surely the Vatican could not be allowing the Pope to be exploited by Mel Gibson's formidable marketing operation. Could it?

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1130076,00.html

I suspect there have been some shady dealings amongst some shadowy Catholic groups there.

I assume that a strict reading of the ible would say that although the Jewish members of the Roman forces helped kill Jesus but no one can be blamed as they were essentially carrying out God's plan to the letter?

[edit: But of course you can't really expect the Jewish to follow such a strict interpretation of the New Testament and given the millenia of persecution you can't reall blame them for being sensitive.]

Of course this has never stopped people from twisting this to their own ends over the last 1000+ years.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

I wish the Pope would put an end to this ridiculous vallication!

Emps, this issue has been twisted and abused far too much and I'm sure that will only continue. Personally, I want people to be accepting of the facts as best as we can understand them. Then work from there. Denying, covering up, or distorting history does not serve us well at all.

From everything I can see prior to actually viewing this film, Mel Gibson has done nothing but attempt to portray the gospel accounts on the screen. If people have a problem with the film, they have a problem with the gospels. Let them attack the source if it means that much to them.

[edit]
I want to ad that not all Jews share this view that the film is bad. As you know, I listen to a fair amount of talk radio. Two of the hosts I listen to regularly are Jews, Dennis Prager and Michael Medved, both of whom have praised this film in its artistry and portrayal of history. They have both been privileged at getting advanced screenings from Mel Gibson.
[/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 01-25-2004).]

quote:

---

Not tell history as we know it to be? Would that make them happy? Or are they saying that no Jew had *any* involvement in Christ's death at all?

---

I think what will make them happier is not reminding it to whole damn world with christian dogma, through using "Holywood's methoods" as if Jews are scums(just the same way majority were portraited in bible) because they did not agree with the oppinion that Jesus was son of God.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or even lets say they were like that: "bloodthirty killers or whatever"

Now lets not forget the fact that majority of bloodthirsty Chritian Europeans during 1500s who conquered a whole bunch of nations killing everyone for the sake of their Jesus and God, because they were more important afterall. Plus lets not forget that they eliminated alot of religions, sending loser monks preaching door to door to people saying "we offer salvation" and as if it was the most "absolute" oppinion.

man...I don't understand....what is it now? Christ goes Holywood?
how many more movies about Jesus are they going to make? we got the point, the guy raises from dead, saves a bunch of losers and if you dont believe in him you are damned. Move on!

why don't they make movie about Budha and make Chow Yun Fat cast as one? Or even better, make movie about Allah and his buddy Muhammad!...ohh wait I think they already made that one...yeah you know Morgan Freeman is Allah and Jim Carrey is that asshole Muhammad AHH I am full of ideas today!


ignore rant


edit: ohh wait why dont we make million dollar movie about how chritianity conquered the world? I mean its history after all. Or even better the 200 years war between Islam and Europe? you know! its goint to be like LOTR: two towers, where at the end you get this huge computer generated battle with bunch of computer generated violence and blood! plus neither side wins, man this movie would rule so much! Both sides get to hack and slash buttloads of folks for their God...HA that would be awesome!



[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-25-2004).]

Ruski, it's not "Christian dogma". It's history. If it's an inaccurate portrayal then all one has to do is show why from what we know happened.

I think I will ignore your rant

. . : slicePuzzle

well since it can be inaccurate...or perhaps its completly unknown how much accurate it is...why would we even make movie about history we are not even sure how accurate it is written anyway?

I find it hardly necessary, perhaps its a great way to make buttloads of cash...after all there are so many christians in the entire world....how many are going to see it? *gasp* Mel! you have grabbed entire world by the pocket! once again!...perhaps ever since he made Brave Heart, eh?

quote:

---

...why would we even make movie about history we are not even sure how accurate it is written anyway?

---

Why not? It has been going on forever. You think Braveheart was accurate, or any movies of that type? You think history books are entirely accurate? Remember, history is written by the winners, and history as we know it isn't nessecarily what really happened. The difference here, and what seems to bother you so much is the content material.

Ask yourself why it aggravates you so. Why let it? What's the point? If you don't like something, ignore it. We all have that choice.

quote:

---

Move on!

---

I totally concur.

quote:

---

If you don't like something, ignore it

---

Thats excatly what I am going to do. But Asylum's phylosophy forum is a perfect place to bitch about stuff

btw, typing my bitchings and oppinions does not cost million dollars, as to make same old story about god dude. So yeah bitching is always important and it's my hobby. Everytime something is going to be released total lame by Hollywood I am gonna bitch =)



[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 01-25-2004).]

Bugs:

quote:

---

Ruski, it's not "Christian dogma". It's history.

---

I wouldn't go that far - there are few corroborating accounts outside of the Bible. I'd label it an interesting story that might have been based on some kind of historical occurence (although even that is open to debate).

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Emps, there is a substantial amount of support for the events described in the NT. We have hundreds of fragments and copies of those documents. Why are you casting that much skepticism onto them? I totally understand the theological events like the resurrection are much harder to accept but are you doubting that Christ was real and said most of the stuff described and died on the cross?

. . : slicePuzzle

I don't understand any of the issues surrounding this "controversy" quite frankly.

I certainly don't understand why you are so hot and botehred, Ruski. It's a movie. It tells a story. Movies like this are always done for two reasons - 1) Because it's a story that the people involved feel needs to be told, and 2) to make money.

So, if you're not interested, don't go see it....

Now, as far as 'anti-semitism' goes.......... :confsued: please...

If we censored every movie that came out based on how it portrayed a certain group of people, we would have very few movies out there, and they'd all suck. I agree wholeheartedly with Bugimus - this movie is based directly on the scripture. If you have a problem with the movie, you have a problem with the scripture, and need to address it accordingly. The stories have been written for almost 2000 years - you can't object to then now simply because someone is putting them down on film.

Whether it is historically accurate - I can't really say at this point. I feel certain it is close...but there is a whole lot of room for fabrication on the details, so....

Bugs:

quote:

---

Emps, there is a substantial amount of support for the events described in the NT. We have hundreds of fragments and copies of those documents. Why are you casting that much skepticism onto them?

---

While we know that the general elements of the setting of the story have been confirmed what eveiene do we have that Jesus even existed? The closest we have (as far as I'm aware) are some of the pages of the Dead Sea Scrolls which, if we follow the interpretation of some of the passages, casts a very different light on a fiugre who may or may not have been Jesus.

None of the accounts were written at the time and there may have been major revision after the meetings at Nicaea.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Now I am wondering if Paul Harvey really wrote that review. I wonder how we can find out.

jade: Is it important that he did? I had a look online and he appears to be a radio pundit so I'm not sure why he should be deemed an authority on this - you shouldn't believe anyone's reviews until you see it yourself.

However, I did a quick search online and look who is top of the pops:

"paul harvey" passion

which makes me wonder where you got it from.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Perhaps snopes.com can help settle this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/passion.asp

joelblaylock said this above ^ I guess it was easy to miss.

Emps, I am saying that the NT documents themselves are the best evidence because they are better supported than many other works of antiquity we have. Like I said, there are so many fragments and copies of the originals that it clearly proves the originals had to exist. These documents were written within the lifetimes of the apostles themselves who were eyewitnesses to the events. I am afraid you are missing the forest for the trees by not seeing the strength of the NT itself.

There are also extra-biblical sources that mention Jesus. Let me see if I can find that list somewhere around here...

. . : slicePuzzle

well, if jesus wasn't real in some respect would christianity have gained exponentially in popularity to the point where the roman empire would make it the "official" religion after killing off thousands of its followers? seems like a faith would have a hard time having an impact without followers who had witnessed its results firsthand in an ancient society (which wouldn't necessarily hold true in our media-filled world today).

quote:

---

btw, typing my bitchings and oppinions does not cost million dollars, as to make same old story about god dude. So yeah bitching is always important and it's my hobby. Everytime something is going to be released total lame by Hollywood I am gonna bitch =)

---

i think the point behind the film is that its NOT the "same old story about god dude", no one's ever attempted to tell this story this accurately before (as accurately as we know anyway). as far as being "total lame" from all accounts i've read its a pretty powerful film regardless of your faith, you can't judge something before you see it.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

I'm not personally syaing that I don't think that Jesus wasn't a historical figure although I'm not aware of a huge amount of evidence outside of the NT (which is second or third hand commentary written a considerable time afterwards and tweak later to 'sex it up' ) and I wouldn't define the NT as historically accurate.

That said basing a religion on someone who never existed is not out of the laegue of many a religion so...........

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

...to the point where the roman empire would make it the "official" religion after killing off thousands of its followers?

---

I fail to see how events 300 years later have anything to do with whether the story is true or not. Legends and exagerations have a way of turning into "truth" over time....

quote:

---

I fail to see how events 300 years later have anything to do with whether the story is true or not. Legends and exagerations have a way of turning into "truth" over time....

---

true, but its not like the romans ignored it for 300 years and suddenly went "yeah, sounds good, let's try that." there would've had to been some sort of progressive build-up in order for it to spread to a point of relevance, which it seems to have done rather quickly.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

i won't pass any judgement on this film until i actually see it,
but i do applaud Mel for using his power and money for something
he apparently believes in very strongly.

if only more christians would put their money where their mouth is,
maybe things would be different. haha.

regardless, i look forward to seeing it.

Fig:

quote:

---

true, but its not like the romans ignored it for 300 years and suddenly went "yeah, sounds good, let's try that." there would've had to been some sort of progressive build-up in order for it to spread to a point of relevance, which it seems to have done rather quickly.

---

Its more exponential growth - it was slow over the first 200 years until the changes decided on at Nicea (where elements of other Middle Eastern religions and the Roman Sol Invictus cult were incorporated) and it was these changes which really launched Christianity - clearly the familiarity with Sol Invictus (see previous threads) really helped its adoption by the Roman Empire.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

^ what he said. In addition, it's not exactly that Christianity took over Rome so much as it is that Rome took over Christianity - almost irrevocably changing it at some of it's most basic levels.