 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/20/2003 5:51 AM (GMT -6) |   | Here is Ron Sider's commentary, it is followed by a Rabbi's response...
1.HOLLYWOOD'S NEW JESUS FILM,
by Ron Sider.
On July 22nd, I traveled to the Sony Music Building
in New York City to join a small circle of religious
leaders invited to screen an early version of "The
Passion," Mel Gibson's new film, to be released next
spring, on the last 12 hours of Jesus' life.
There is already a lot of buzz about this new film.
Some have charged that its portrayal of the Jewish
religious leaders is anti-semitic.
Mel Gibson (famous for his acting in "Mad Max,"
"Lethal Weapon," "Braveheart," etc.) is the
driving force behind this movie. Not all of his
movies have been exactly edifying, but he is a
committed Catholic, and his faith is central in the
production of this movie. He was at the screening,
talked with us, and listened to our critique.
On balance, "The Passion" is simply fabulous. It is
emotionally wrenching because it is brutally honest
about the violence of Jesus' death. Never in my life
have I seen any movie that comes even close to
depicting what Roman crucifixion was really like.
Long familiarity and theological explanation have
leached out in our minds the awful brutality of
Jesus' trial and death. John's simple words - "Then
Pilate took Jesus and scourged him" - feel vastly
different as you watch two brutal Roman soldiers go
on minute after terrible minute gouging Jesus'
near-naked body with whips. Pious talk about Jesus'
death for our sins takes on a whole new meaning.
The depiction of Jewish leaders simply reflects what
the Gospels say happened. The chief priest and other
Jewish leaders are portrayed leading the call for
Jesus' crucifixion. Some liberal scholars and
contemporary Jewish leaders want us to rewrite
history. I applaud Mel Gibson for telling the story
the way the Gospels, our earliest historical
records, portray what happened.
I was glad for the opportunity to share with Gibson
a few ways that I thought the film could be
improved. He is still revising and editing. But "The
Passion" is a powerful and well made Hollywood
movie. Don't miss it when it appears early next
year.
Dear E-pistle,
Re: Ron Sider's comment "The depiction of Jewish
leaders simply reflects what the Gospels say
happened. The chief priest and other Jewish leaders
are portrayed leading the call for Jesus'
crucifixion. Some liberal scholars and contemporary
Jewish leaders want us to rewrite history. I applaud
Mel Gibson for telling the story the way the
Gospels, our earliest historical records, portray
what happened."
I would suggest that whether the film portrays the
Jewish leadership the way the Gospel describes them
is not the ONLY issue.
Does it show how fully rooted Jesus was in the
Jewish community?
Does it make clear that he himself was a Rabbi
("Master," as many translations say, was almost
certainly in the Aramaic original "Rabbi")?
Does it make clear that he himself was a Pharisee? a
left-wing Pharisee, but a Pharisee nevertheless?
(The Pharisees were that group within the Jewish
community who were trying to reinterpret Torah, and
were often committed to the poor and common folk.
They too believed that the Sabbath must - not could,
must - be violated to save a life.)
Does it show in vivid intensity (as vivid as the
showing of the Crucifixion) that those who followed
Jesus as well as those who opposed him were Jews,
living according to the Torah?
Does it see this history not as "the Jews" vs.
"Jesus & the soon-to-be-Christians" but as an
internal struggle between a radical Jewish movement
and a government made up of Jews that was a puppet
of the Roman Empire, colliding amidst all the
in-betweeners and third-pathers who emerge in such a
crisis?
Does it show that out of this crisis emerged not
only Christianity but also Rabbinic Judaism, which
as history fell out made no compromise with Rome
like the one the Church made in 331?
To make Jesus out as the enemy of "the Jews" as has
been done in most of the history of Christianity
would be like making Dan Berrigan or Martin Luther
King into the enemy of "the Christians."
And the fact that most of the Jews finally concluded
that it did not accord with Jewish spirituality and
the Jewish message from God to see Jesus as the
Jewish Messiah or as any more the Son of God than
any other profoundly spiritual and decent human
being did not, even in retrospect, make the Jews the
enemies of Jesus or Jesus the enemy of the Jews.
Not only individual Christians but very large parts
of Christianity as an institutional body have over
the last two thousand years portrayed the Jews and
Jesus in exactly that way - as enemies. This kind of
portrayal has had a great deal of responsibility for
cruel and murderous oppression of the Jewish people.
So the history requires great care to make sure that
every opportunity be taken by serious Christians -
and serious Jews - to make sure that these incorrect
portrayals of inveterate enmity in the past not
continue, for they make it much harder to move
beyond hostility in the present and the future.
Doing that without "rewriting history" or even
rewriting the Gospels (which may not from an
independent historian's standpoint be the same
thing) is quite possible. It simply requires
emphasizing some historical information that is
fully present in the Gospels - such as the
Jewishness of Jesus and his followers - but has
rarely been made clear to Christian communities by
Christian leaders.
Perhaps the film does that. (Since I, like other
Jews, was not invited to see an advance showing, I
can't say.) Or perhaps Ron Sider's "few" suggestions
to Gibson for some changes would do that. But the
brief review does not mention such questions, and I
think they are crucial - the crux, so to speak. For
on this crux - this cross - hang many lives.
Shalom,
Rabbi Arthur Waskow, Director
The Shalom Center (http://www.shalomctr.org)
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/27/2003 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok. Rant time.
This whole thing blows.
Why? Two reasons.
1) The sheer horror should NOT be in the fact that Jesus (God) was crucified, but in the fact that HUMAN BEINGS could do such things to one another!!! Why do we act like Jesus was the ONLY PERSON to be given death in such a cruel, horrific manner. There were MANY people who died like this! Why the big friggin deal about JESUS being one of them??
People will leave this movie more thinking about poor, poor Jesus than the all-too-PRESENT human sin that made a thing like crucifixion arise in the first place!
2) This completely devalues the INCARNATION. By and large, the Incarnation is a LOT MORE existentially wrenching of an idea than any earthly punishment. TRY to imagine going from complete unity, love, and life in a blissful, unimaginably intimate and intense environment of love…to a cold, noisy, painful, separated, disorienting existence. AND THAT’S JUST BIRTH!!!! Qualitatively speaking, Jesus being incarnated would be the MORE than an equivalent of us being sent to Hell! After experiencing intimate life with God on that level, anything less would BE hell! Screw crucifixion.
The whole thing just blows. My two cents.
PS: But I do agree with the Rabbi on this. I hope they did a good job with that.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/27/2003 7:25 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/28/2003 12:22 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/28/2003 2:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
Gibson has the right to make a scriptural film that depicts what happened to Jesus by the scriptures. He was put to death by Romans with the Jewish powers of the time's blessing. That is historical fact. All naturalities have some skeltons in their closet. Better that Jewish people learn from the film than whine about it. Personally I could care less about Jewish Christian relations if it supresses the truth of the gospel. Are you more concerned with Jewish Christians relations or the truth of the gospel? The truth is Jewish people wanted Jesus dead. Sometimes the truth sucks. Even if you are Jewish.
Historically, we don't know the facts about what proportion of the Jewish people played an instrumental role in the events that led to Jesus' crucifixion. Theologically we do know that it was all of our sins going back to the beginning that made his death on the cross necessary. As such, it isn't accurate to blame the Jewish people for his death. The fact such arguments have been made and persist in some circles needs to be confronted and not permitted to foment again.
Hence, the legitimacy of the concerns over Gibson's film and how he did not permit some people to view it beforehand...
quote:
You know DLW, there is no getting around the fact that there are fundamental differences bewteen Jews and Christians. I will not sacrifice those differences for the sake of "relationships."
"I don't think we need to increase tensions..." yeah, heaven forbid we actually speak the truth in love anymore...
Yes, but the mere historical events prior to Jesus' death on the cross is not the fullness of the truth and they are capable of being skewed and perverted.
Yes, there are some big differences between Christians and Jews, but the emergence of a messianic jewish movement in the US was possible because we did not have anti-semitism institutionalized as thoroughly as came to be the case in Europe. The general relations between us do, in fact, affect our ability to gain a hearing that is an important prerequisite to sharing the Gospel.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/28/2003 3:50 PM (GMT -6) | | | I think that it is really, really, really interesting that Josephus versus the Gospels/Acts were in a life-and-death competition over which view of mainline Judaism (inheritors of Abrahams' religion) would be considered officially official by Rome and recieve official protection, and which would be considered an upstart (read "threat to the status quo") cult and become officially slated for annihilation. One guess. (Josephus had inside connections in Rome.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/28/2003 4:20 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Ok. Rant time.
This whole thing blows.
Why? Two reasons.
1) The sheer horror should NOT be in the fact that Jesus (God) was crucified, but in the fact that HUMAN BEINGS could do such things to one another!!! Why do we act like Jesus was the ONLY PERSON to be given death in such a cruel, horrific manner. There were MANY people who died like this! Why the big friggin deal about JESUS being one of them??
People will leave this movie more thinking about poor, poor Jesus than the all-too-PRESENT human sin that made a thing like crucifixion arise in the first place!
2) This completely devalues the INCARNATION. By and large, the Incarnation is a LOT MORE existentially wrenching of an idea than any earthly punishment. TRY to imagine going from complete unity, love, and life in a blissful, unimaginably intimate and intense environment of love…to a cold, noisy, painful, separated, disorienting existence. AND THAT’S JUST BIRTH!!!! Qualitatively speaking, Jesus being incarnated would be the MORE than an equivalent of us being sent to Hell! After experiencing intimate life with God on that level, anything less would BE hell! Screw crucifixion.
The whole thing just blows. My two cents.
Applause to Meph's comments:
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/28/2003 6:06 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/29/2003 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
So the Bible isn't history, DLW. I really think you might want to check out the gospels. Jesus died for our sins, but it was the Jews who, politically, wanted him dead. It isn't anti-semitism to be truthful. Gibson has the right to show his film to people who will give it a favorable reaction, rather than paranoid Jews and liberal Christians who worry that it will "damage Jewish-Christian relations). He is not allowing certain groups to view it because they judged it without even seeing it.
Sometimes I wonder about you, DLW, you seem bent on casting Christianity in its most non-offensive light, regardless of the cost to its integrity.
Finally, one must seperate the actual act from the reason for the act. My sins drove Christ to the cross. But my sins did not physically kill him. Nor did I physically kill him. It amazes me that Christians are so negative about a film that may actually depict the last hours of Christ's life. How pathetic!
I think DLW is just concerned that the movie itself will portray all Jews as hateful Christ-killing terrorists. It's not so much a concern about Biblical Truth as much as it is about whether or not this film will portray that Truth accurately. The Biblical Truth is that not ALL of the Jewish people wanted Jesus crucified. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were Pharisees but they were secretly followers of Jesus. Of course all the disciples and the women who followed Jesus didn't want Him executed either. And even though the Bible doesn't say it, I bet that most of the people Jesus healed and freed from demons didn't want Jesus executed either.
If indeed, contemporary Jewish people have been attacked and persecuted because of unfair portrayals in the media, this should be a concern of ours as Christians, because it's supposedly Christians who are attacking Jews after seeing these films. We cannot let any member of the Body do these things in the name of Jesus because that's a misrepresentation of Him and His love for the lost.
Again, I don't think any movies about Jesus' crucifixion needs to be watered down to do this. I just think that it needs to be obvious that not all Jews are villains. Maybe before the movie, Mel Gibson could give a disclaimer clarifying this somehow. That might take away from the artistic drama he wants to project with the film, but I doubt if it would too much. And it might prove to be very helpful in the long run.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/30/2003 7:21 PM (GMT -6) | | To all, excuse me while I jump in. I have preceived my comments to be a little harsh (not very nice) therefore I am deleting them all. Much apologizing to DLW in particular, for a very bad judgement on his Christianity. I am very sorry. Much later...
PS I thought the faces had much more to say than I did...at least constructively... | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/31/2003 10:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Honordude,
I think our conflict on this post was largely due to a misunderstanding. As you know, I know and have known a fair number of jewish people since my graduate school days and because of that tend to be rather sensitive on Jewish-Christian relations.
Also all histories are selective in what they portray and given the normal divisions that characterize the jewish people on most matters today it would be very unrealistic to view them as all leading the charge in favor of the crucifixion .
nice faces...
quote:
Originally posted by Electra
Hey dlw, thanks for posting those reviews. I especially appreciated Rabbi Arthur Waskow’s response to Sider. He does a nice job of exposing many of the misconceptions people have about the second-temple Judaism of Jesus, his followers, and his opponents.
I am a little leary of Gibson’s portrayal, because I heard (can’t remember where) his father is one of these people who deny the Holocaust. Does anyone know if this is true?
Electra
I read the article that brought to light that fact. I don't think Mel shares his father's beleifs on that. He is a fundamentalist catholic or built a church in that belief and fundamentalist catholics are the ones that think Vatican II was a big mistake and that is where Catholics first officially recognized Protestants as also Christians and started working on improving relations with the Jews.
I doubt any views on that impinged on the making of the movie, afterall, he does need for us to go see it to make a profit...
I highly recommend that anyone interested in suscribing to Prism e-pistle where I got the initial letters to email PrismEpistle-subscribe@onelist.com .
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/31/2003 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | | "You suffer from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out." Paul
Was Paul anti-semetic? NO, but he was recording history. I do not believe Jews in general should be blame for Jesus' death for the same reason that I don't believe whites today should take blame for slavery a century ago. We have nothing to do with what our ancestors did? However,
to record what happened from a historical source (the Bible) is to record Jewish people conspiring to kill Jesus. That is not anti-semetic, but simply reflects the biblical text. How would Gibson be anti-semetic...how could he be that if he is simply using biblical texts? My fear is not that he will be anti-semetic but that he will water down the message of scripture. The Jews of that time (scribes and Pharisees) should be condemned for their hatred of Jesus and should be portrayed well to show the evil they did. Just as slave owners and what they did should not be watered down. And they should be condemned. Jews should applause Gibson for making a film that condemns hatred by any group, including their own.
When "The Last Temptation of Christ," came out, and conservatives were all up in arms, everyone was preaching open mindedness. Wait til it comes out. Where is that openmindedness now? Where is that tolerance now? It seems it only goes one way?
I am also curious that when regular Christians make movies of Jesus, there isn't a peep from anyone. But when a big name star wants to do an acturate portrayal of the suffering of Jesus, everyone does balistic. I wonder why...too close to Hollywood's liberal, "tolerant" heart?
Finally, I believe Gibson has the right to make "Any" kind of film he chooses, including an anti-semetic one, just as I have the right not to see it and film companies have the right not to finance it. This is America, after all. But I urge everyone to wait until it is out before you pass judgment.
BTW, Gibson has said that he doesn't agree with his father and has chastised the media for hounding his father about it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/31/2003 6:23 PM (GMT -6) | | BTW, could someone show me biblically where it says that Jesus was a Pharisee, per the Rabbi's comments?
Secondly, perhaps the Rabbi didn't understand the scope of the movie. Its intent is not to show an overview of Christ's life, but its last 12 hours, from scripture. Hardly could such a timeframe effectively point to Jesus' Jewishness nor does it seem that that was the intention of Gibson in doing the film. There is, however, nothing in the scriptures that would say that Jesus was an enemy of the Jews.
And what does he mean on this hangs many lives? Does he seriously think that if Gibson does not implement his changes people are going to hate Jews for it and kill him? Me thinks the Rabbi is just a littl overdramatic!
I do wonder, Jews are not Christians and Christians are not Jews. Gibson is making a movie about Christianity's main figure. Why would he have any obligation to show it to Jews, who are not followers of Christ? Why should they feel they have the right to see anything just because it involves their ancestors so long ago. This is a Christian film. Gibson wants support for it so he shows it to Christians. I think Rabbis such as this have gotten their way too many times. He sounds somewhat like a spoiled child... | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/31/2003 6:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: I would like to respond to you in this way: "Why the big deal about Jesus being one of them?" If you don't understand the big deal about Jesus being one of them, perhaps you are devaluing the incarnation. Don't ya think...
BTW, DLW, Gibson doesn't need to make a profit on this movie at all. He's financing it and, if anything, he'll enhance his viability at a known figure (all news is good news in Hollywood). Usually in the movie biz, big stars trade off with studios, under the agreement that if they do this big one for the studio, the studio will finance and distribute their "little" project that they'll want to do. I doubt seriously that Gibson will, in the end, lose anything. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/1/2003 3:18 AM (GMT -6) | | I really was hoping Meph Man would add a couple more cents. Here's what I'm think'n. With regard to the incarnation deal:
1. At about three in the afternoon Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Elí, Elí, lemá sabachtháni?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Matt 27:46
With regard to "poor, poor Jesus" and not thinking of our own sin:
2. Suffering Servant motifs and the implications for Christian living.
This is why, IMHO, the violence SHOULDN'T be downplayed. Because it seems to me that it carries theological meaning not only for Christ's deity, but also as a model for us for Christian living. Yes, it is one thing to take the cross "out of context" as you rightly complain (I don't think Gibson is aiming toward theological preciseness, especially of the evangelical sort). But violence (at least in the passion narrative)conveys something when we consider the whole.
P.S. This is why I WOULD cringe at "violence per se" in the arts. When it has no connection with the greater whole (and various other reasons) violent portrayals can be non-sensical and assualting to one's person. Nobody has problems with Jesus overturning tables.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/1/2003 4:25 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/1/2003 4:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Electra
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
quote:
Originally posted by Electra
I am a little leary of Gibson’s portrayal, because I heard (can’t remember where) his father is one of these people who deny the Holocaust. Does anyone know if this is true?
That's now rummors get started. Someone wonders something out loud, without knowing for sure, about something they don't have a personal interest in. But it ends up being another party that gets hurt. A verbal case of wreckless driving -- the other guy gets hurt.
Actually, requests for confirmation/disconfirmation are how rumors get stopped. Since I posted this tentative statement, Brandon gave a link that confirmed it and honorman added that Gibson does not share his father’s view. I appreciate the clarification.
Electra, tell me this, please. Would you have "shunned" Mel if you had learned that his FATHER held that view. That was the way it seemed. (which would fit the PC culture)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
turner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 13
| Posted 9/1/2003 4:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, Electra...
Give us a TOP FIVE of the misconceptions to be dispelled about Second Temple Judaism!
| | Back to Top | | |
| 27 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:34 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|