Author Topic: The movie "The passion of the Christ".  (Read 3116 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mdamyers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Faith: not yet anathemized by Rome
  • Jurisdiction: Leaning toward OO, but open-minded
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #225 on: April 20, 2015, 02:25:39 AM »
Porter, your reply surprises me, since it's obvious that you cannot have read his homilies. If you had you'd realize that there's nothing slanderous in reporting facts, which are nothing more than his own words. I recommend that you do your homework first before commenting further. His homilies speak for themselves.

Offline mdamyers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Faith: not yet anathemized by Rome
  • Jurisdiction: Leaning toward OO, but open-minded
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #226 on: April 20, 2015, 02:33:37 AM »
I found this one of the more thoughtful reviews of "The Passion of the Christ:"

http://virtualreligion.net/forum/passion.html


Quote
Although Catholic leaders, from Augustine in the 4th c. to Innocent III in the 13th, vigorously opposed the spiritual descendents of Mani, the Manichean equation of  this world, the flesh, and the devil became ingrained in the popular western worldview; and their gnostic equation of salvation with extreme asceticism left an indelible mark on Christian spiritual discipline.

As if these things are not found in the Bible as well. The author also totally leaves out the fact that the film does in fact include the Resurrection. Lot of squishy liberal Christianity...

I would also disagree that the film's Jesus is completely helpless. The author mentions the snake crushing scene without keying into the meaning of it. Jesus also has a few moments when he stares at a Roman soldier as if He were going to kill him.

Dr. Smith qualifies and argues convincingly for each of the points you object to in your first paragraph in what was to me satisfying detail, in his review. You left all that out. Debate isn't allowed here, but I have to tell you that this great modern scholar of the NT isn't so easily dismissed as that. It's incorrect to claim that Dr. Smith didn't "key into" the meaning of that scene in Gethsemane, which of course has no basis in the gospel texts. He discussed the parallels. And he did comment on the resurrection scene, albeit with brevity similar to the film's. I think you'd need to read the whole thing, or read it more carefully.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 02:47:47 AM by mdamyers »

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,613
  • Torn apaaaht
  • Faith: Semi-Evangelical
  • Jurisdiction: Might become Orthodox
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #227 on: April 20, 2015, 03:24:10 AM »
He discussed the parallels but didn't allow it to work against his overall conclusion. A Jesus that crushes the serpent is not an absolutely helpless victim of evil.

Smith also never mentions the Resurrection (except perhaps obliquely in the typical liberal way of equating salvation solely with "personal reconciliation and social justice"). Nor does he mention its inclusion in the film.

And why are you going to bat for this guy who accuses St. Paul of only being interested in Christ crucified for the sake of his own guilt transference and who calls the Synoptics Antisemitic?

At least I'm willing to admit that my problems with the Biblical narrative and St. John Chrysostom viz. the Jews is one of my biggest reasons for considering rejecting Christianity all together, not creating a liberal hodgepodge of the text.
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline mdamyers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Faith: not yet anathemized by Rome
  • Jurisdiction: Leaning toward OO, but open-minded
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #228 on: April 20, 2015, 05:46:39 AM »
He discussed the parallels but didn't allow it to work against his overall conclusion. A Jesus that crushes the serpent is not an absolutely helpless victim of evil.

Your first post: "The author mentions the snake crushing scene without keying into the meaning of it."
Your second: "He discussed the parallels but didn't allow it to work against his overall conclusion. A Jesus that crushes the serpent is not an absolutely helpless victim of evil."

Your first comment suggested to me that you had missed the more than 400 words of the review where Dr. Mahlon Smith discusses in detail a scene which on screen took all of about 5 seconds, in a move 127 minutes long (i.e., 0.0662% of it), thereby projecting into it from his own store of erudition and insight hugely more depth and resonance than it deserved, IMHO. Given that 1) it's a total fabrication with no supporting basis whatsoever in the gospels, and 2) it fails nevertheless to allay at all the film's overwhelmingly morbid, essentially gnostic and Manichaean sensibility. If the viewer had sneezed or turned his head from the screen for these few seconds he'd have missed it completely. The recurring theme of the review was Gibson's systematic distortion of the message and heart of the gospels, and that of the Scriptures as a whole. That was his "overall conclusion." I agree. I don't care to debate that impression with you, and it wouldn't be appropriate to do it here if I did.

Smith also never mentions the Resurrection (except perhaps obliquely in the typical liberal way of equating salvation solely with "personal reconciliation and social justice"). Nor does he mention its inclusion in the film.

From the review: " . . . In fact, the reason that Jesus' crucifixion became central to Christian faith was the conviction of his followers that his agony and death were not the end."

It's true that Dr. Smith didn't mention its inclusion in the film, tendentiously bypassing all 5 seconds of its screen-time glory. This minimalist anti-coda struck me as way past bizarre, little more than a blasé afterthought, when I saw the film. You were correct about that. I concede this neglect constitued a flaw in his review, since I found Gibson's treatment one of the very worst facets of the film's narrative sensibility. I might have spent a merciless 1500 words on it, myself. Maybe Dr. Smith elected to be charitable, though, and bury that ultra-weird short shrift in kindly silence.

And why are you going to bat for this guy who accuses St. Paul of only being interested in Christ crucified for the sake of his own guilt transference and who calls the Synoptics Antisemitic?

I thought the review was thoughtful, learned and well argued, so I shared it with the Forum. I have a few minor problems with it here and there. Not "going to bat" for him, whatever that's supposed to mean. Your odd allegation here about some accusation Dr. Smith makes against St. Paul is simply false (the only guy to whom this interest and "guilt transference" remotely applies is the director, according to the reviewer. I think you've got him confused for St. Paul, but then the 2nd-to-last pope had him confused with an evangelist, so I shouldn't be too hard on you.). Nor does he anywhere in the review call the Synoptics anti-semitic. These two assertions border on being hallucinatory, if you'll pardon me for saying so.

At least I'm willing to admit that my problems with the Biblical narrative and St. John Chrysostom viz. the Jews is one of my biggest reasons for considering rejecting Christianity all together, not creating a liberal hodgepodge of the text.

Not sure what the "liberal hodgepodge of the text" refers to exactly, or who this hodgepodger is, in your view. Not following you.

As I said, I basically agreed with the reviewer's take. If anything, my own personal opinion of the film is significantly more hostile than his. It appears you don't agree, though I'm not really sure about that. But because I take it that this board is not an appropriate area to debate this, I'll conclude by noting that it is, evidently, a tricky venture indeed to confine oneself to mere discussion of such a film, without hooking the ball deep into the rough of debate or even making a big splash in a polemical water hazard. Because I don't care to mark my debut here with a 2-stroke penalty and loss of distance, the last word's all yours, Volnutt.

Debate: Discussion including contesting the meaning or application of an argument, story, etc.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 06:17:47 AM by mdamyers »

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,613
  • Torn apaaaht
  • Faith: Semi-Evangelical
  • Jurisdiction: Might become Orthodox
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #229 on: April 20, 2015, 05:59:36 AM »
Well, I certainly can't debate the subjective sense you get from the movie.

On St. Paul:

Quote
Transference is at the root of the biblical concept of substitutionary sacrifice, in which the feared consequences of one’s own guilt and self-revulsion are visited on someone else.

...

Substitutionary sacrifice also provided the conceptual framework within which the primitive Christian proclamation "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor 15:3) was formulated and has been interpreted for almost two thousand years.

Reading again, I suppose Smith doesn't accuse the authors of the Synoptics of anti-Semitism. That was a misreading on my part.
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,989
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #230 on: April 20, 2015, 08:10:48 AM »
Whether or not there's anti-Semitism in the movie, it doesn't appear that it derives from St John Chrysostom's homilies, but from the Gospel narratives themselves. Am I right?

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,613
  • Torn apaaaht
  • Faith: Semi-Evangelical
  • Jurisdiction: Might become Orthodox
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #231 on: April 20, 2015, 08:37:15 AM »
Whether or not there's anti-Semitism in the movie, it doesn't appear that it derives from St John Chrysostom's homilies, but from the Gospel narratives themselves. Am I right?

That and The Dolorous Passion and likely some of Mel Gibson's personal hang-ups.
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,432
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #232 on: April 20, 2015, 09:12:01 AM »
I found this one of the more thoughtful reviews of "The Passion of the Christ:"

http://virtualreligion.net/forum/passion.html

 What makes Gibson’s dark vision doubly disturbing is that it appears convincing to so many pious Christians, including Pope John Paul II, who is alleged to have commented on previewing the film: "It is as it was."  If one reads the gospels carefully, however, within the historical context in which they were actually written, one is apt to conclude that James Carroll is probably closer to the truth in proclaiming: "It is a lie!"

What does the underlined part mean?
Especially coming from a Jesus Seminar site, but even if it did not come from there, what does it mean? I've seen statements like that a lot especially in religious content and am clueless.
Make it simple for me as most know I am dimly illumined, especially the part "in which they were written".
Mark 14:36
God is with us, understand O' ye nations, and submit yourselves, for God is with us

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,989
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #233 on: April 20, 2015, 09:16:02 AM »
Whether or not there's anti-Semitism in the movie, it doesn't appear that it derives from St John Chrysostom's homilies, but from the Gospel narratives themselves. Am I right?

That and The Dolorous Passion and likely some of Mel Gibson's personal hang-ups.

Which parts are based on his personal hang-ups?

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,196
  • Christ is risen!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #234 on: April 20, 2015, 01:13:19 PM »
The recurring theme of the review was Gibson's systematic distortion of the message and heart of the gospels, and that of the Scriptures as a whole. That was his "overall conclusion." I agree. I don't care to debate that impression with you, and it wouldn't be appropriate to do it here if I did.

To be honest, I disagree with that assessment.  Of all the "biblical" films out there, I think Mel Gibson's is fairly good at not distorting "the message and heart of the gospels, and that of the Scriptures as a whole".  I find it much better at this than "The Bible", "Son of God", and "A.D. The Bible Continues" or whatever that last one is called.  Those never fail to shock me by how what they choose and choose not to depict ends up gutting the story of "the message and heart of the gospels".  I want to like them, but I can't accept films about Christ made by Christians which deny the divinity of Christ even to the point of altering direct quotations affirming it.   
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet.  He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants.  But he really isn't around anymore.


Offline mdamyers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Faith: not yet anathemized by Rome
  • Jurisdiction: Leaning toward OO, but open-minded
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #235 on: April 20, 2015, 03:27:52 PM »
Whether or not there's anti-Semitism in the movie, it doesn't appear that it derives from St John Chrysostom's homilies, but from the Gospel narratives themselves. Am I right?

If this thread were moved to another board, and I could have a free hand, I'd really love to give this movie, and the much bigger subject of "Christian" anti-semitism in general and its horrific consequences, something closer to the full treatment I think they deserve. To the extent that that's possible on a Forum like this. I actually have the time this week, looks like, to do some prep work for that, which would include enduring a re-viewing of a movie that I utterly loathed for so many reasons and on so many levels.

My only substantial hesitation stems from the fact that I came here hoping participation in this Forum might work out as exercise in irenic discourse for me, a guy with altogether too much talent -- or maybe it's just too much opportunity and incentive -- for the other kind. I think I suffer from a certain humoral imbalance, rhetorically speaking, of late. I fear these two topics would tempt me to deploy heavy artillery. That might, or might not, be a good thing. In any case this is extremely dangerous territory.

I brought up the Golden-mouthed Archbishop John because I'm thoroughly convinced that some of his questionable rhetoric has paved the way for disaster. I admire and even revere much of his oratorical labor, though. I want to make that clear. He's a fascinating figure.

Having said that . . .

This ball's in the moderators' court, now.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 03:37:16 PM by mdamyers »

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,989
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #236 on: April 20, 2015, 03:31:37 PM »
Whether or not there's anti-Semitism in the movie, it doesn't appear that it derives from St John Chrysostom's homilies, but from the Gospel narratives themselves. Am I right?

If this thread were moved to another board, and I could have a free hand, I'd really love to give this movie, and the much bigger subject of "Christian" anti-semitism in general and its horrific consequences, something closer to the full treatment I think it deserves. To the extent that that's possible in a Forum like this. I actually have the time this week, looks like, to do some prep work for that, which would include enduring a re-viewing of a movie that I utterly loathed for so many reasons and on so many levels.

My only substantial hesitation stems from the fact that I came here hoping participation in this Forum might work out as exercise in irenic discourse for me, a guy with altogether too much talent -- or maybe it's just too much opportunity and incentive -- for the other kind. I think I suffer from a certain humoral imbalance, rhetorically speaking, of late. I fear these two topics would tempt me to deploy heavy artillery. That might, or might not, be a good thing. This is certainly extremely dangerous territory.

I brought up the Golden-mouthed Archbishop John because I'm absolutely convinced that some of his questionable rhetoric has paved the way for disaster. I admire and even revere much of his oratorical labor, though. I want to make that clear. He's a fascinating figure.

Having said that . . .

This ball's in the moderators' court, now.

OK, so St John has nothing to do with the movie. Good to know.

You know you're allowed to start a new thread in the appropriate forum yourself?

Offline mdamyers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Faith: not yet anathemized by Rome
  • Jurisdiction: Leaning toward OO, but open-minded
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #237 on: April 20, 2015, 03:48:10 PM »
Jonathan: "OK, so St John has nothing to do with the movie. Good to know."

Not saying that at all. I do think that some of his oratory, and its sequelae, have contributed to the collective psychological miasma from which cultural artifacts such as "The Passion of the Christ" bubble up, among other, bigger problems. Far, far more than anything in the Bible does when properly read, interpreted and taught. IMHO

I prefer to leave this decision up to the moderators. I know this is tantamount to dynamite potentially. I'm sure they do, too. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and all that.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,989
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #238 on: April 20, 2015, 03:51:05 PM »
Jonathan: "OK, so St John has nothing to do with the movie. Good to know."

Not saying that at all. I do think that some of his oratory, and its sequelae, have contributed to the collective psychological miasma from which cultural artifacts such as "The Passion of the Christ" bubble up, among other, bigger problems. Far, far more than anything in the Bible does when properly read, interpreted and taught. IMHO

I prefer to leave this decision up to the moderators. I know this is tantamount to dynamite potentially. I'm sure they do, too. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and all that.

But you don't have any specific details in the movie that you think you can attribute to St John? That's what I understand by "having to do with". Just saying that the movie is anti-Semitic and St John is anti-Semitic and therefore it's all the same thing isn't good enough, I'd say.

Offline mdamyers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Faith: not yet anathemized by Rome
  • Jurisdiction: Leaning toward OO, but open-minded
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #239 on: April 20, 2015, 04:14:08 PM »
Jonathan, have you read these eight homilies by Archbishop Chrysostom? (He delivered them in Antioch at a point in his career when he was still just a reader, is my understanding.) Get back to me after you've done your homework, if you want to discuss them with me substantively.

But you don't have any specific details in the movie that you think you can attribute to St John? That's what I understand by "having to do with".

Lots of specific details up my sleeve, to answer your question, it that's what it was. But I'm waiting for a/the moderator/s to weigh in here, if they wish to, before I have at this fraught subject.

Just saying that the movie is anti-Semitic and St John is anti-Semitic and therefore it's all the same thing isn't good enough, I'd say.

A sloppy caricature of what I've written so far. I don't accept it. But I don't want to take the bait to debate without administrators' input, again. I think I've made myself clear enough. My last word for now.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,989
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #240 on: April 20, 2015, 04:22:12 PM »
Jonathan, have you read these eight homilies by Archbishop Chrysostom? (He delivered them in Antioch at a point in his career when he was still just a reader, is my understanding.) Get back to me after you've done your homework, if you want to discuss them with me substantively.

But you don't have any specific details in the movie that you think you can attribute to St John? That's what I understand by "having to do with".

Lots of specific details up my sleeve, to answer your question, it that's what it was. But I'm waiting for a/the moderator/s to weigh in here, if they wish to, before I have at this fraught subject.

Just saying that the movie is anti-Semitic and St John is anti-Semitic and therefore it's all the same thing isn't good enough, I'd say.

A sloppy caricature of what I've written so far. I don't accept it. But I don't want to take the bait to debate without administrators' input, again. I think I've made myself clear enough. My last word for now.

What are you waiting for exactly? Can't you tell the difference between irenic discussion and polemical debate? It's obvious you can't stop yourself engaging in the latter, so just go ahead and start a debating thread in the appropriate forum. Meanwhile, if you have nothing to add to this discussion, please leave the rest of us alone.

Offline mdamyers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Faith: not yet anathemized by Rome
  • Jurisdiction: Leaning toward OO, but open-minded
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #241 on: April 20, 2015, 07:25:30 PM »
Preemptive disclaimer: I've written my last word on the movie, and the subject of "Christian" anti-semitism*, for now, on this board & in this thread.

What are you waiting for exactly? Can't you tell the difference between irenic discussion and polemical debate? It's obvious you can't stop yourself engaging in the latter, so just go ahead and start a debating thread in the appropriate forum. Meanwhile, if you have nothing to add to this discussion, please leave the rest of us alone.


I've explained to my own satisfaction what I'm waiting for, and why. (I say a little more below, however, in the hope of placating you.) I'll reconsider how I ought to proceed, after some reasonable interval, if the moderator(s) are uninterested in replying, or if I don't hear anything from them because, say, they feel they have better things to do with their limited time on a busy site. Or whatever. I'm attempting to be collegial.

I have experience with moderation, and I make a living assaying meanings embodied in the written and spoken word. I understand both the responsibilities involved in effective moderation on an important venue such as this and the inherent complexities and perils of the subject matter in this particular thread. I happen to think "Christian" anti-semitism is a very important, and timely, topic. I don't think it's at all appropriate for you, a fellow Forum member, to be issuing what sound to me like a summary judgment about my capabilities, a taunt wrt to my discernment capacities, and a very rude and baseless token of your skepticism about my potential for contribution to the discussion. It sounds, just a little bit, thus far, as if you wanted to judge, discredit and silence me. Just a wee bit, a hint of that.

I'm capable of telling the difference between these two types of discourse, to answer your taunt in the form of a question. In reply to the charge against me that followed it, I plead innocent: on the contrary, I am quite able to stop myself from engaging in inappropriate or out-of-place polemics, in spite of your false assertion. (The evidentiary basis for which interests me, but that's a separate issue.) I'm imperfectly capable of irenic discussion -- more than most, I like to think, and less than some. Like everyone else I could use some practice -- clearly including yourself. With respect to your suggestion that I unilaterally start a "debating thread," I believe I've sufficiently covered my thinking on that. You're evidently not content with that coverage, for whatever reason. This is not my problem. I'd point out that it's simply not your call, though I'd like to assure you of my due gratitude for the advice.

I think, with excellent reason, that I have much indeed to contribute to this discussion, and not only to this one but many, many others, too. I confess I find it somewhat odd that you don't mind giving me, and perhaps others, the impression at least of a desire to silence, discredit or intimidate me. I'm also curious about two other things: 1) who exactly has appointed you spokesman for "the rest of us," and 2) what are the grounds, in anything I've written thus far, to support your exhibition of what sounds to me a little bit like the nascence of a persecution complex, evinced in the fact that you request that I 'please leave "us" alone"? What's up with that? Am I really such a terrible meanie?

Oh, and thanks so much for your warm welcome to oc.net, Jonathan. Noted.

(This is assuredly my last word to you for the foreseeable on this thread. That you can take to the bank.)

*aside from indicating my view about its importance and relevance.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 07:31:42 PM by mdamyers »

Offline biro

  • Excelsior
  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,141
  • Leave me alone, I was only singing
    • Alaska Volcanoes
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #242 on: April 20, 2015, 07:26:41 PM »
For what it's worth, I have read part of the book. Years ago. I've never seen the film, and I don't think I will.
He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

--

And if I seem a little strange, well, that's because I am

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,989
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #243 on: April 20, 2015, 07:30:47 PM »
Preemptive disclaimer: I've written my last word on the movie, and the subject of "Christian" anti-semitism*, for now, on this board & in this thread.

What are you waiting for exactly? Can't you tell the difference between irenic discussion and polemical debate? It's obvious you can't stop yourself engaging in the latter, so just go ahead and start a debating thread in the appropriate forum. Meanwhile, if you have nothing to add to this discussion, please leave the rest of us alone.


I've explained to my own satisfaction what I'm waiting for, and why. (I say a little more below, however, in the hope of placating you) I'll reconsider how I ought to proceed, after some reasonable interval, if the moderator(s) are uninterested in replying, or if I don't hear anything from them because, say, they feel they have better things to do with their limited time on a busy site. Or whatever. I'm attempting to be collegial.

I have experience with moderation, and I make a living assaying meanings embodied in the written and spoken word. I understand both the responsibilities involved in effective moderation on an important venue such as this and the inherent complexities and perils of the subject matter in this particular thread. I happen to think "Christian" anti-semitism is a very important, and timely, topic. I don't think it's at all appropriate for you, a fellow Forum member, to be issuing what sound to me like a summary judgment about my capabilities, a taunt wrt to my discernment capacities, and a very rude and baseless token of your skepticism about my potential for contribution to the discussion. It sounds, just a little bit, thus far, as if you wanted to judge, discredit and silence me. Just a wee bit, a hint of that.

I'm capable of telling the difference between these two types of discourse, to answer your taunt in the form of a question. In reply to the charge against me that followed it, I plead innocent: on the contrary, I am quite able to stop myself from engaging in inappropriate or out-of-place polemics, in spite of your false assertion. (The evidentiary basis for which interests me, but that's a separate issue.) I'm imperfectly capable of irenic discussion -- more than most, I like to think, and less than some. Like everyone else I could use some practice -- clearly including yourself. With respect to your suggestion that I unilaterally start a "debating thread," I believe I've sufficiently covered my thinking on that. You're evidently not content with that coverage, for whatever reason. This is not my problem. I'd point out that it's simply not your call, though I'd like to assure you of my due gratitude for the advice.

I think, with excellent reason, that I have much indeed to contribute to this discussion, and not only to this one but many, many others, too. I confess I find it somewhat odd that you don't mind giving me, and perhaps others, the impression at least of a desire to silence, discredit or intimidate me. I'm also curious about two other things: 1) who exactly has appointed you spokesman for "the rest of us," and 2) what are the grounds, in anything I've written thus far, to support your exhibition of what sounds to me a little bit like the nascence of a persecution complex, evinced in the fact that you request that I 'please leave "us" alone"? What's up with that? Am I really such a terrible meanie?

Oh, and thanks so much for your warm welcome to oc.net, Jonathan. Noted.

(This is assuredly my last word to you for the foreseeable on this thread. That you can take to the bank.)

*aside from indicating my view about its importance and relevance.

Your posts in general have a self-satisfied and argumentative tone. That's how you've chosen to introduce yourself here, and that's the impression I've gotten of you. If you want me to have a different impression, try a different style of posting.

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,613
  • Torn apaaaht
  • Faith: Semi-Evangelical
  • Jurisdiction: Might become Orthodox
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #244 on: April 20, 2015, 11:52:42 PM »
Whether or not there's anti-Semitism in the movie, it doesn't appear that it derives from St John Chrysostom's homilies, but from the Gospel narratives themselves. Am I right?

That and The Dolorous Passion and likely some of Mel Gibson's personal hang-ups.

Which parts are based on his personal hang-ups?

I can't prove anything, but given who his father is and what's been revealed via his subsequent drunken rants, I have a hard time believing him when he claims not to be an anti-Semite himself.
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,613
  • Torn apaaaht
  • Faith: Semi-Evangelical
  • Jurisdiction: Might become Orthodox
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #245 on: April 20, 2015, 11:56:08 PM »
The recurring theme of the review was Gibson's systematic distortion of the message and heart of the gospels, and that of the Scriptures as a whole. That was his "overall conclusion." I agree. I don't care to debate that impression with you, and it wouldn't be appropriate to do it here if I did.

To be honest, I disagree with that assessment.  Of all the "biblical" films out there, I think Mel Gibson's is fairly good at not distorting "the message and heart of the gospels, and that of the Scriptures as a whole".  I find it much better at this than "The Bible", "Son of God", and "A.D. The Bible Continues" or whatever that last one is called.  Those never fail to shock me by how what they choose and choose not to depict ends up gutting the story of "the message and heart of the gospels".  I want to like them, but I can't accept films about Christ made by Christians which deny the divinity of Christ even to the point of altering direct quotations affirming it.   

Well, to be fair, I don't see why one couldn't produce an Arian reading of the film. I don't recall Gibson's Jesus declaring "I and the Father are one," or "Before Abraham was, I AM."
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,196
  • Christ is risen!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #246 on: April 20, 2015, 11:58:27 PM »
The recurring theme of the review was Gibson's systematic distortion of the message and heart of the gospels, and that of the Scriptures as a whole. That was his "overall conclusion." I agree. I don't care to debate that impression with you, and it wouldn't be appropriate to do it here if I did.

To be honest, I disagree with that assessment.  Of all the "biblical" films out there, I think Mel Gibson's is fairly good at not distorting "the message and heart of the gospels, and that of the Scriptures as a whole".  I find it much better at this than "The Bible", "Son of God", and "A.D. The Bible Continues" or whatever that last one is called.  Those never fail to shock me by how what they choose and choose not to depict ends up gutting the story of "the message and heart of the gospels".  I want to like them, but I can't accept films about Christ made by Christians which deny the divinity of Christ even to the point of altering direct quotations affirming it.   

Well, to be fair, I don't see why one couldn't produce an Arian reading of the film. I don't recall Gibson's Jesus declaring "I and the Father are one," or "Before Abraham was, I AM."

It didn't depict Hosea's marriage to the harlot either. 
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet.  He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants.  But he really isn't around anymore.


Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,613
  • Torn apaaaht
  • Faith: Semi-Evangelical
  • Jurisdiction: Might become Orthodox
Re: The movie "The passion of the Christ".
« Reply #247 on: April 21, 2015, 12:00:33 AM »
I know and that sucks. All movies should depict Hosea's marriage to the harlot.
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman