5 replies to this topic

[advancedatheist]

I'm already sick of hearing about Mel Gibson's Jesus movie, and not just because some christian groups have latched onto it as a propapanda tool.

The whole premise is just wrong-headed. One, Jesus was probably mythological.

Two, Jesus' body wasn't damaged all that badly, though christians tend to argue that Jesus suffered an extraordinary level of physical abuse as punishment for our "sins," or something to that effect. Excuse me, but some American soldiers are coming back from Iraq minus limbs, genitals, eyes, parts of their faces and parts of other organs. Not to mention their surviving burn, bullet, shrapnel, blunt force and other kinds of injuries. They are suffering far worse trauma than what Jesus allegedly experienced. And considering that Jesus seemed to die too efficiently on the cross and wasn't observed to begin to decompose, his "death" seems ambiguous if not outright fraudulent. You have to wonder if there would have been a "resurrection" if the Romans had beheaded Jesus or burned him at the stake.

And three, how is Mel Gibson going to show the "resurrection" without its resembling a scene from Stargate?

[DJS]

*chuckle* Yeah, it's a shame to see that Gibson is one of those "crazy christians". I saw a preview for one of the interviews he did promoting "the passions". At one point Gibson gets real serious and says (paraphrased), "you're asking me to say whether I'm a visionary or a mad man?"

I have no comment. [sfty]


By the way, thanks for the link Mark! I've added it to my favorites. [thumb]

[DJS]

The content on www.jesusneverexisted.com is truly fascinating. I have always heard, even from atheists and humanists, that there was a good deal of documentation proving that Jesus was an historical figure. Now after perusing this web site I am not so sure. This is definitely a topic I am going to explore further.

[bacopa]

I completely agree and this whole idea of blaming the Jews for his death is an outrage if anything especially considering that Jesus was originally Jewish himself I never understood that!

Mel does seem to be a little off the deep end from what I've gathered from the interview with Diane Sawyer.

[advancedatheist]

Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of Gibson's makeover of the Jesus myth comes from the fact that it perpetuates passive behavior about solving the world's problems, especially the Big One regarding mortality. Oh, let the Magic Jew in the sky solve it.

[hughbristic]

I thought it was pretty standard Christian dogma that the Jewish priesthood was threatenend by Jesus and encouraged the Roman authorities to kill him. I thought it was pretty standard Christian dogma that Pilate offered to spare Jesus and the [Jewish] crowd rejected him. Unless, Gibson is somehow saying more than this, I don't see how his film is any different than what is in the Bible and taught in Sunday school every week in most Protestant and Catholic churches. If the Passion is anti-semetic, why not the Bible? Of course, redaction criticism of the Gospels suggests that the downlplaying of Roman culpability and the emphasis on Jewish guilt was a later revision to the texts to make them seem less threatenening to the Roman empire, but what we are talking about is the dogma and tradition and in that regard, there is no difference I can see between Gibson and John Paul. Mel Gibson's father, on the other hand, is certainly an anti-Semetic conspiracy nut. If you read between the lines of what his son says you've got to wonder if, in his heart of hearts, Mel doesn't agree with the old man and feels he simply can't afford to offend the Jews who "run the world" (or Hollywood at least).

Hugh