This continues to be interesting.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The View Askew WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Mrs. Isis Fabulous at on August 22, 2003 at 17:15:20:

In Reply to: Re: Response posted by Kevin on August 22, 2003 at 15:30:38:

: Isis, from most of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you're smarter than this.

Backhanded compliment! SMACK!

Anyway, let me preface my response by saying I'm not trying to prove Jesus DIDN'T exist, or that the stories in the Bible couldn't be true; simply that I'm open to all the possibilities, whereas it's pretty clear Mel isn't. And the Christian story done in a fundamentalist, "THIS is the way it was" type of way alienates a lot of people, plain and simple.

: But this, like much history, is muddled due to the subjective nature of the historical
: experience. I'm sure there are over a hundred different versions of the night Lincoln was
: shot, based on all the witnesses in the theater. But eventually, one version of the story
: (perhaps one comprised of the multiple versions) becomes the historically accepted factual
: account of the death of Lincoln. So, too, with the life and death of Jesus.

Oh, this I can absolutely agree with, but I think it would make a better analogy if you used someone more ancient. Say, Christopher Columbus or something. For years it was "historically accepted fact" that he discovered the western hemisphere, liberated the indigenous people into Christianity, and opened up a new world of trade.

Now, we might have different histories, different opinions.

Certainly, even in Jesus's time, there was much about his life that wasn't known. There are very few stories about his life before his final years even in the Bible; how are we to know the whole truth?

Likewise, how much can be known about his death when millions of people still believe, on pure faith, that he never died?

Thousands of churches around the world show pictures of Jesus with white skin, straight hair, and fair eyes, and had you said to your average American Christian a century or two ago that Jesus was black you'd have been lynched from the nearest tree. Now we know better.

: You can stomp
: your feet all you want, crying "Bullshit - he's not in the Roman Census!"

See above; my point isn't to disprove. I personally believe that Jesus DID exist, and was divine, and got it on with Mary Magdalene, and all sorts of other jazz that would make William Donohoe crap his shorts.

I'm just saying that matters of faith by nature can't be proven to those who don't share that particular belief, and it's only a pushy and narrow-minded man who would try.

: Hell, I'll even join
: you in aspects of your debate about the historic Jesus; however, only a willful ignoramus
: rails against the fact that the Bible (like it or not) is an historically accepted account of the
: life of Christ.

Um...okay. That's kind of mean.

: You realize this is like an argument over what color blue is, right? Maybe you don't agree
: with the rest of the world on the subject, but blue has been roundly agreed to as being blue.

I don't think it's quite like that. The people who believe Jesus was the Messiah certainly agree that Jesus was the Messiah. Sure. To the rest of us, blue doesn't necessarily mean anything.

: Apparently remains have been found. There are reports of bones in both France and Japan
: that are rumored to be Jesus'.

Well, see, doesn't that sort of fuck up the whole thing? After all, he was resurrected, and bodily returned to heaven, if all is according to the Bible. The notion of his bones being found is very against traditional Christian teachings, no?

: : In other words, we've got no proof the guy ever existed other than
: However, if you have further doubts in the historical Jesus (leaving aside His debated
: divinity), check out this link...


I read this link but I have to say I've read better arguments on the subject. And this one concludes:

"Recognition does not require historical truth...In the Bible we recognize a human awareness in what scores of anonymous authors have written...As for the four Gospels, the idea that they usually give us Jesus' exact words in their exact context is a popular mirage; there are too many disagreements.' She adds, "In the Bible, therefore, we recognize human truth even when the stories themselves are untrue."

This is exactly what I've been trying to get at all along. Spiritual truth isn't dependent upon historical fact or evidence, and if I were a Christian, I imagine I'd be offended by anyone's claim that they were putting the accurate truth of the savior's life in a movie. I'm a little put off by anyone claiming to know "the facts" about Jesus.

I mean, who goes around looking for Jesus's bones? Doesn't that go against the very idea of faith?

: For the record, Mel's particular sect of Catholicism is a branch I've never heard of until this
: whole "Passion" thing kicked into high gear. I mean, they won't recognize any Popes prior
: to Vatican II.

I don't think the Vatican recognizes them, either. It's a relatively small group.

: But they're not. From what I've read, Mel wasn't out there talking about how he didn't
: recognize any Popes since Vatican II; that just outed during his recent roasting.

Come, come. This is a very famous person putting up a big wadge of his own cash to front a movie filmed in dead languages with no subtitles. By Hollywood standards, it's insane; someone was bound to ask what his motivation was in doing it.

Would you make "Dogma" and not expect to hear the question "Are you Catholic"? It's kind of obvious, right?

: Mel making
: a movie about the death of Christ is not a guy looking for validation; it's a filmmaker
: expressing himself about a subject that's apparently dear to him.

Okay, fair enough; give the man the benefit of the doubt. I can do that.

: But he's never really put it out there. Sure, he's said he's a Catholic. But I've never seen him
: out there talking about how he doesn't acknowledge any Pope after Vatican II.

Because it's bad for his career! Are you kidding? Note how they've shut his dad up since the controversy first began, too.

I mean, Tom Cruise doesn't go around talking about the particulars of Scientology, either. People know what side their bread is buttered on.

: But I was really referring to the revelation that's outed over this "Passion" stuff that Mel's dad
: is a Holocaust denier. I mean, yipes.

Still, that's not "embarrassing private stuff". It was an interview with a major national publication!

: And the world wouldn't have known how he felt unless this "Passion" thing had broken wide,
: is what I'm saying.

Well damn, folks would have never known Hitler was an anti-Semite if MEIN KAMPF hadn't hit the best-seller lists, either!

I just don't get why you're defending these guys; I mean, they are poor persecuted upper-class white male Christians and all, but at least they can afford to make a rocking movie about it.

: I guess we'll see. I don't know, *I* wouldn't normally be much into seeing a movie about a
subject I've seen covered (well) any number of times, filmed entirely in languages I don't
speak, directed by some guy whose beliefs are offensive to me...but I'm intrigued to see it

: Personally speaking? Nope.

I totally meant Woody Allen's last movie. It's a MUST-SEE.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The View Askew WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]