Religions > Bible > Re: Virgin Mary Poop (then) vs. "the Passion" (now)
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Slade Farney" |
| Date: |
02 Mar 2004 11:22:37 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Virgin Mary Poop (then) vs. "the Passion" (now) |
Peter_Wimsey <hayman@duke.edunospam> wrote in message news:<c1vprl$hio$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu>...
A few thoughts generated by this thread:
...
The book and movie of "The Last Temptation of Christ" didn't actually
violate anything actually in the text.
Really? You assert there is a real possibility that Jesus made his
living building crosses for crucifixions, prior to his ministry?
Either you never saw that movie, or you think we have not.
Similar to "The Satanic Verses"
the humanization of a prophet was unpalatable. Yet, Jesus's visions (not
depicted as happening) of a possible life with Mary M. made me more, not
less, interested in thinking about JC. Many "right-thinking" ministers
felt Last Tempatation was exactly the sort of literature and film-making
we should be exploring.
Sure. Jesus got migraine headaches, had a psychotic break, heard
delusionary voices in his head, was misunderstood on his parables by
the crowd, and deliberately lionized (and lied about) by his
disciples. Later, he forced his own crucifixion so he could satisfy
his paranoid psychosis. Yeah, that movie was a great addition to the
"dialog."
It even showed Jesus living through the sack of Jerusalem under Titus
in 70 A.D. -- just to add a little historica truth to the mix.
Anyone wondering about the appropriateness of Gibson's movie and its
critics should see the "Last Temptation." It will open your eyes on
what is really going on in America.
--Slade
.
|
|
| User: "Peter_Wimsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgin Mary Poop (then) vs. "the Passion" (now) |
02 Mar 2004 02:02:06 PM |
|
|
Slade Farney wrote:
Peter_Wimsey <hayman@duke.edunospam> wrote in message news:<c1vprl$hio$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu>...
The book and movie of "The Last Temptation of Christ" didn't actually
violate anything actually in the text.
Really? You assert there is a real possibility that Jesus made his
living building crosses for crucifixions, prior to his ministry?
Either you never saw that movie, or you think we have not.
I'll cross-post one last time lest my reply get missed, but I think this
thread needs to go back to respective newsgroups... I tend to hang out
at the Grateful Dead, not the bible, newsgroup.
Its true its been over a decade since I read the book and saw the movie,
so I cannot argue about the details of the Last Temptation. However, I
think that the point is completely missed in the response to my post. I
think that Last Temptation was an artistic endeavour exploring the
meaning and significance of JC. Sure it went to places many were
uncomfortable with, but by telling the story as a parable filled with
conflicts that most of us modern men deal with, it really brought the
whole issue of Christ into a debatable and recognizable realm. That is
all I was saying. I won't comment on "the Passion" cause I haven't seen
it at all, but I will comment on a comment that a well-written article
in the New Yorker portrayed it is a rather shallow, if not literature
blood-fest made by a psychotic. Hey, don't listen to me, I like David
Cronenberg movies!
N
.
|
|
|
| User: "Slade Farney" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgin Mary Poop (then) vs. "the Passion" (now) |
04 Mar 2004 01:35:15 AM |
|
|
Peter_Wimsey <hayman@duke.edunospam> wrote in message news:<c22p4m$n0a$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu>...
Slade Farney wrote:
Peter_Wimsey <hayman@duke.edunospam> wrote in message news:<c1vprl$hio$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu>...
The book and movie of "The Last Temptation of Christ" didn't actually
violate anything actually in the text.
Really? You assert there is a real possibility that Jesus made his
living building crosses for crucifixions, prior to his ministry?
Either you never saw that movie, or you think we have not.
I'll cross-post one last time lest my reply get missed, but I think this
thread needs to go back to respective newsgroups... I tend to hang out
at the Grateful Dead, not the bible, newsgroup.
Its true its been over a decade since I read the book and saw the movie,
so I cannot argue about the details of the Last Temptation. However, I
think that the point is completely missed in the response to my post. I
think that Last Temptation was an artistic endeavour exploring the
meaning and significance of JC.
No doubt. And perhaps you think the "Protocols of Zion" was "an
artistic endeavour exploring the meaning and significance of" Judaism?
Good boy. In a vacuum of humanity, inhumanity fills the void.
--Slade
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter_Wimsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgin Mary Poop (then) vs. "the Passion" (now) |
04 Mar 2004 01:32:25 PM |
|
|
Slade Farney wrote:
Its true its been over a decade since I read the book and saw the movie,
so I cannot argue about the details of the Last Temptation. However, I
think that the point is completely missed in the response to my post. I
think that Last Temptation was an artistic endeavour exploring the
meaning and significance of JC.
No doubt. And perhaps you think the "Protocols of Zion" was "an
artistic endeavour exploring the meaning and significance of" Judaism?
Good boy. In a vacuum of humanity, inhumanity fills the void.
--Slade
I assume that this was a dig in response to my subliminal recommendation
to view "the Passion" at the same time as films by Leni Reifhenstahl
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/986528.stm).
My take is still that one cannot treat certain films and artwork on
their own merits, and that good engagement of religion and philosophy is
just that - engaging it. By exploring the boundaries of JC's humanity
the Last Temptation was, in my opinion, an excellent exploration of
faith and religous philosophy. It was NEVER about "facts".
Anyway, I cannot possibly articulate my point as well as this weeks New
Yorker which I paste below since you probably need a subscription to
read it. I'm sure the editors will forgive my copyright infringement
given the importance of the message here.
-N
____________________________________________________________
GROVES OF ACADEME
PASSIONS, PAST AND PRESENT
by David Remnick
Issue of 2004-03-08
Posted 2004-03-01
Last week, while the critics, the clergy, and the professional
opinion-providers were caught up in the opening, on Ash Wednesday, of
“The Passion of the Christ,” it seemed a good idea to ask Elaine Pagels,
a renowned historian of the early Christian period, to see the film and
offer her reaction. Scholarship on the quick, admittedly. Professor
Pagels, who teaches at Princeton and is the author of “The Gnostic
Gospels” and “The Origin of Satan,” seemed hesitant at first. But one
evening she viewed “The Passion” with some friends, and afterward she
called to say that she was, well, disturbed. And not just because of the
unremitting and brutal flaying of Christ, “though my friends said that
anyone who had really endured that kind of torture would have been dead
a lot earlier in the movie.”
Pagels is both a scholar and, in her way, a practicing Christian.
Usually, she is measured, soft-spoken, but there was the slightest tone
of agitation in her voice: “It’s important to remember that this is
Lent, and meditations on the Passion of Christ are an important part of
the cultural interpretation of human suffering. There’s a context for
the movie in the history of art. When Christians read the Gospels as
historical acts, they will say what Mel Gibson says: that this is the
truth, this is our faith. But the important thing is that this film
ignores the spin the gospel writers were pressured to put on their
works, the distortions of facts they had to execute. Mel Gibson has no
interest whatsoever in that.”
Pagels explained that the four gospel writers of the New Testament
probably wrote between 70 and 100 A.D. These were the years following
the Roman defeat of the Jews, which left the Temple and the center of
Jerusalem in ruins. Acts of sedition by the Jews against their
conquerors were met with swift execution. As a result, Pagels said, the
Gospels, which were intended not as history but as preaching, as
religious propaganda to win followers for the teachings of Christ,
portrayed the conflict of the Passion as one between Jesus and the
Jewish people, led by Caiaphas. And, though it was the Roman occupiers,
under Pontius Pilate, who possessed ultimate political and judicial
power in Judea, they are described in the Gospels—and, more starkly, in
Gibson’s film--as relatively benign.
“Our first informed comment on Pilate comes from Philo of Alexandria, a
wealthy, influential Jewish citizen who was part of a delegation sent to
Rome to negotiate with the emperor,” Pagels said. “The delegation saw
the Emperor Caligula in the year 40, seven to ten years after Jesus’
death, and Philo writes that Pilate was stubborn and cruel and routinely
ordered executions without trial. The other great historian of the
period is Josephus, who wrote the history of the war between the Romans
and the Jews. He tells us many episodes about Pilate that also go
against what the Gospels tell us—that he robbed the public treasury,
that he deliberately incited the Jerusalemites. Josephus tells us that
when people rioted in protest Pilate sent his soldiers to beat and kill
them. So he was far from the man depicted in the Gospels.
“Mel Gibson denies any anti-Semitism, and I can’t speak to his motives,”
Pagels went on, “but there are narrative devices that are clear. The
more benign Pilate appears in the movie, the more malignant the Jews
are. To deflect responsibility from the Romans for arresting and
executing Christ, which Gibson takes from the Gospels and makes even
more extreme, is contrary to everything we understand about history. It
is implausible that the Jews could be responsible and Pilate a benign
governor. There are many examples in the film of a preposterous
dialectic: the bad Jews and the good Romans. When the Temple police
arrest Jesus, Mary Magdalene turns to the Romans as if they were the
policemen on the block, benign protectors of the public order. But the
very idea of a Jewish woman turning to Roman soldiers for help is
ridiculous.”
Unlike many of the critics, Pagels was hesitant about analyzing what
effect “The Passion of the Christ” would have on its audiences. But her
tone was one of regret.
Pagels pointed out that the history of western art is rife with
representations of the Passion that avoid divisive sentiment. “In the
‘St. Matthew Passion,’” she said, “Bach was very aware of the problem of
arousing anti-Semitic feelings and he wanted deliberately to avoid that.
So at the moment when there is the cry to crucify Christ, the call comes
not from an identifiable group of Jews but from all, from the entire
chorus. Bach demonstrated what Gibson claims that he wanted to show, the
inclination of human beings, universally, to do violence.” There were
other artists, too—from Palestrina to Bill Viola--who depicted the
Passion in a similar spirit.
In the end, she said, “Gibson’s movie is no more subtle than ‘The Lord
of the Rings.’ There is the side of good and the side of evil.”
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
