I have not seen Mel Gibson’s film about Jesus, and I don’t intend to. An interpretation of one of the great narratives of history by a Hollywood movie star just does not attract me.
I have heard some commentary here and there. People are appalled by the violence, but of course Christ’s suffering is at the centre of the whole story, so it must be violent. The logic of the narrative only works if the sacrificed one (Jesus) goes through just about every imaginable humiliation, torture and finally death, and still chooses to save humanity. The message is that humans are so intrinsically worthwhile that Jesus will suffer anything to save us, and at the same time his extreme strength in doing so indicates some higher spiritual character. This story relates to us all, because overcoming the suffering of life is a core human concern. It is without question a great story full of meaningful commentary on the human predicament, no matter whether one accepts the orthodox Christian interpretation or not.
One comment that has amused me is to hear people claim that the movie is historically accurate. Now, I won’t bother mentioning the various arguments doubting that Jesus was actually a historical person, or if he was, nothing like the man in the story. No, let’s stick with the texts. So, all I’ll ask is, ‘historically accurate according to who’?
As the excellent SBS program ‘Who Wrote the New Testament?’ shows, there is no single source telling about Jesus’s life and death, even if we limit the narratives to the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Furthermore, there are other texts extant that seem to present a different Jesus again, although the Catholic Church seems keen to keep this material quiet.
Mel Gibson clearly has an ideological reason for making this movie, but he is entitled to spend his money in this way if he chooses. After all, there have been plenty of movies about Jesus. But we should not be fooled into thinking there can ever be an historically accurate version. People who claim this are exhibiting their faith, not their knowledge.
February 27, 2004 | Peter
Gibson’s ‘Truth’
11 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think youll find that people have said this movie is the MOST historically accurate. No recount of anything is 100% accurate because there will always be segments left out that the suthor retelling the story will exclude, thinking that it was unnecessary informaition.I think you’ll find that people have said this movie is the MOST historically accurate. No recount of anything is 100% accurate because there will always be segments left out that the author retelling the story will exclude, thinking that it was unnecessary information. Gibson himself says that this movie is his interpretation of Jesus’ death, resurrection (and I haven’t seen it yet, but possibly ascension too).
I’m not one to believe everything I read, hear and see, however I think if you did more research you would find that Gibson is a devoted Catholic/Christian (depends on your definition of each name). He is not just a “Hollywood movie star” but he is more than that. He is an individual telling the story of his mentor, his saviour, his councillor and his best friend. Therefore you should consider seeing it, and if you can’t appreciate anything else about the movie, you could value the courage it took for Gibson to make such a controversial movie, putting his career on the line for sharing his faith.
Comment by cathy — February 27, 2004 @ 11:59 pm
Whilst I appreciate some of Mel Gibson’s work and intend to see this particular movie, I think it would prove insufficient impetus to see the film based only on the ‘courage’ exhibited in the making of it.
I am hoping it will be a great piece of cinema, as I already know the story but would like to see it depicted on film through the Director’s eyes. Having said that, I will probably end up thinking the book was much better!
Comment by Peter Huynh — March 1, 2004 @ 6:37 pm
It seems to me that Gibsons Passion movie is a sado-masochistic pornographic SNUFF movie.
A full on frontal assault on the FEELING HEART at the core of our being.
In effect a grotesque “artistic” exercise in what Adi Da Samraj calls the war against the body at the root of the entire western “cultural” project.A war which has brought the entire world to the brink of both cultural and ecolgical meltdown.
See The Taboo Against the Superior Man at:
http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2
Put it in another nontext: say a USA cable TV porn channel and strip it of its grotesque so called “religious meanings” and all you have is a horrific SNUFF movie.
Historically “accurate”. You must be joking.
The only thing we REALLY “know” about the legendary character called Jesus of Nazareth is that he died. ALL the rest of the “jesus” legend is an invention by others NONE of who actually “knew” “jesus”.
Adi Da Samraj also points out that the so called cruci-fiction of “jesus” was/is entirely bad news.
Please check out: The Christian Idol at:
http://www.dabase.net/proofch6.htm#idol
Grace Shines
John Forth
Comment by John Forth — March 4, 2004 @ 10:58 am
It seems to me that Gibsons Passion movie is a sado-masochistic pornographic SNUFF movie.
A full on frontal assault on the FEELING HEART at the core of our being.
In effect a grotesque “artistic” exercise in what Adi Da Samraj calls the war against the body at the root of the entire western “cultural” project.A war which has brought the entire world to the brink of both cultural and ecological meltdown.
See The Taboo Against the Superior Man at:
http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2
Put it in another nontext: say a USA cable TV porn channel and strip it of its grotesque so called “religious meanings” and all you have is a horrific SNUFF movie.
Historically “accurate”. You must be joking.
The only thing we REALLY “know” about the legendary character called Jesus of Nazareth is that he died. ALL the rest of the “jesus” legend is an invention by others NONE of who actually “knew” “jesus”.
Adi Da Samraj also points out that the so called cruci-fiction of “jesus” was/is entirely bad news.
Please check out: The Christian Idol at:
http://www.dabase.net/proofch6.htm#idol
Grace Shines
John Forth
Comment by John Forth — March 4, 2004 @ 11:00 am
To John Forth: one of the other commentators on this post…
Firstly- there is one core issue that I think your argument is missing- perspective. As a Christian, and Gibson would probably agree with me here, the story (not legend) of Jesus Christ did happen. You say that the only thing we know is that he died- he was born too! That kind of kills you argument as it shows that you don’t know what you are talking about! You say, “all the rest is an invention by others NONE of who actually “knew” “Jesus””- tell me, if the Bible, the basis of where Gibson discovered this story, is not written by people show did not know him how come other parts of it have been proven to be historically and archaeologically true: the flood, Babylon, the entire Samarian Empire. Although it is a book about God, it still has reference to history. Jesus’ remarkable story is told in the four gospels- Matthew, Marks, Luke and John. These four people were part of the 12, Jesus’ disciples and they did know him, and they did know who he was. They knew, “The knowledge of the secrets of the Kingdom of God has been given” according to Luke 8:10.
Believe it or not- I read that thing and I personally fund it the biggest load, but that’s my opinion. I’m not going to force it upon you nor expect a respectful answer. It says, “Men worship Jesus as an exclusive human embodiment of God because they are unwilling or unable to accept the kind of responsibility for themselves that Jesus accepted for himself”. Firstly Jesus had nothing to take responsibility for- he lived a sinless life, by choice. If I was “unwilling or unable to accept the kind of responsibility for themselves that Jesus accepted for himself” as this article so pitifully puts it- then technically I should not have to accept responsibility for myself, but for those around me. I am willing to accept responsibility for the things I do wrong, and I believe that for those actions I deserve to be punished. However just because I also want to gain forgiveness from my heavenly father for those things too, that doesn’t not mean that I don’t want to accept responsibility for my actions.
Basically because you choose not to put your faith in the amazing gift that Christ gave you, you choose to criticize it- find something better to do than sit at your computer and insult people like me by claiming that that to whish I devote my life, my song, my emotions, my speech, my every breath to. Think up your own ideas on life instead of reading this stuff on the net and thinking, “ooh- that’s sounds like a logical argument” and claiming it as your own beliefs or thoughts on this movie and Christ. Find a purpose for your life- and when you’ve found something that is as fulfilling as mine- email me: unable_2_fly@hotmail.com. I would like to her your answer.
God Bless
Cathy
Colossians 2:2-3 “My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
Comment by cathy — March 4, 2004 @ 11:27 pm
If Gibson wants to make money on a myth called christ let him. I have read comments that jesus was real, that he lived and died. Tripe! There is absolutely no evidence (other than hearsay) that he was real. If you believed what was said in the bible re: christ you will also believe in the tooth fairy, the easter rabbit and st nick. Grow up.
Science says that Big Foot or the Yeti doesn’t exist. Why? simple, no evidence, only hearsay.
So tell me where is the difference?
slati
Comment by Slati — March 7, 2004 @ 12:14 am
Reworded Version of Slati’s comment:
If Gibson wants to make money from portraying the story of Christ let him. However you will find that he himself has said that he did not made this for money- but as an evangelistic tool. He accepts that it may be the death of Hollywood career- but he values his faith over his work. I have read comments that Jesus is real, that he lived and died. Tripe- there is absolutely no evidence (other than hearsay) saying that he WASN’T real! (it’s called a Bible) If you believe (note: no ‘d’ here) what is said in the Bible re: Christ you will not also believe in the tooth fairy as you know that it is completely illogical and nothing but a myth- and that the rabbit’s can’t talk, walk around on two feet and give out eggs- showing that the Crucifixion is the real reason behind the 3 day calendar event and that a fat guy in a red suit saying “Ho ho ho” is a story of an ordinary guy who gave out presents which was then changed making it legend and subsequently turned to myth- clearly showing that the birth of Christ is the point of Christmas. Science says that yeti and Bigfoot doesn’t exist. Why? Simple, no evidence, only hearsay. And also that they were an explanation of something that a bunch of mountaineers could not explain- but that’s beside the point.
I have a quick question- does any one who does not believe in Christ, still celebrate Christmas and Easter in their home? Because what is the point in you doing so when you don’t believe the cause of the celebration?
Now to answer your question- “what is the difference?” the difference I believe is an issue of faith- I can understand from your perspective how you would be speculative of the story of Christ and all Biblical stories because I was once like that. It’s a thing of believing that we (meaning human kind) weren’t just put on earth to live and die- but that we have a predestined purpose, a plan for a lives and it is our obligation to fulfil that. That purpose and that plan is what I have found in Jesus- I’m 15 (not that it has any relevance to what I’m saying I don’t think) but I have found something that I thought I would never find- freedom, someone to rely on, a comforter, a councillor, a creator. The realism of Jesus, and his story is something that I hold close to my heart- I choose to believe it because so many Biblical stories have been proven. The flood or the discovery of the Biblical city Calah (now Nimrud) and Nineveh- by Austen Henry Layard. The difference is really something that you have to determine yourself- you can decide if it is all tripe or whether you want to believe in it- I’m not here to be a Bible basher- nor am I here to insult anyone else’s beliefs. But these are mine, and these are probably those of Mel Gibson and since he cannot defend something that he prides, I take it upon myself to do it for him.
My thoughts summarised: Jeremiah 29:11 “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” And another of my favourite verses: Psalm 138:7-8a Though I walk in the midst of trouble, you preserve my life; you stretch out your hand against the anger of my foes, with your right hand you save me. The LORD will fulfil his purpose for me.
Comment by Cathy — March 7, 2004 @ 4:42 pm
Hey cathy,
If you were a follower of Muhammad would you be on the street throwing stones? Better still, how about a bomb belt. A fanatic is a fanatic, regardless of their faith.
If I had wanted to pad out my blog with the diatribe that you placed Reworded Version of Slati’s comment I’d have done it. god botherers are just as bad as the dills with their rocks/bombs. Dont believe me? Check out history and the crusades of the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. Do you know why they were conducted? Money, power and land for the pope mainly. How many innocents were slain? But I’d put money on it you will say “we’re (christians) not like them”
Rubbish woman!!
Just to give you a little background. I am in my 50’s, married with 2 grown children. I went through the seminary and became a priest. I found that the “One day christians” could quote verse all the time. DIDN’T live it, but quoted it often enough. Are you like that? Anyway I Didn’t find the answers. The more you really dig, the more you find it doesn’t fit. I left. over the last 18 years have lived by the precepts of Buddha. Not the belief in or of but the way of life. You should try it.
Comment by Slati — March 11, 2004 @ 12:30 am
hi, cathy
btw: xmas and easter are just ordinary days, no reason to celebrate. anyway
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.
1). When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2). I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3). I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4). Leviticus 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
5). I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6). A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is a abomination of Leviticus 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
7). Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8). Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?
9). I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10). My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16). Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
lifted from
http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/show.php?ItemID=1925&page=1
Comment by slati — March 11, 2004 @ 11:57 pm
I’m quite happy with my Christian faith. I don’t need to try Buddha- go through my entire life to find the perfect balance in order to reach enlightenment. I think you’ll find that I do more than just quote verses sing songs on Sunday- I’ve been a Christian for seven years now so you can’t call me a ‘one day believer’ otherwise I would have left like you.
I’m sorry that your experience with the church wasn’t the best. We’ve done some pretty stupid things- but hasn’t everyone? I do consider the Christians who fought the crusades (especially the last with Kind Richard the 3rd was it???) to be in the same boat as current Muslims. They thought they were doing what was best to reclaim a city that had religious significance. As are the Muslims now. But also if you look back in history, mass warfare was the known way to do things, the only way that they knew how with their technology. Just like today, strategic battle and intelligence is the way to fight a war. As civilisations have developed, so have their beliefs and opinions of situations. Maybe in their particular culture it was acceptable. We’ll never know.
I believe you that the SUBORDINATE reasons for the crusade were probably money, power and land for the pope. I also believe that some of the main problems in the modern day church are people, power and possession- that they don’t work to their potential because of people in their way, their lack of power in the community, and the fact that some churches hold to their possessions too tightly. But I know that if I do my best to fix it there is nothing else I can do. I think you need to attend Planet Shakers or Youth Alive and then you’ll see the better view of the modern church. Youth Alive is in two days and I can’t wait.
You have a right to your opinion, as I have a right to mine, I don’t consider myself to be a God botherer because God loves his creation, bout you and me- it’s just a case of accepting his gift of love, his ultimate sacrifice, into your life.
Comment by cathy — March 11, 2004 @ 11:58 pm
Just to add to my last comment:
I was listening to Mr Cobb in Christian Living (subject at school) yesterday and he said something that really made me think of this whole thing- and that will relate to Slati’s last comment.
It was something that another student had said to Mr Cobb in class one week. “I’ve stopped going to church because they’re all a bunch of hypocrites” and then Mr Cobb said something that really got me thinking- “If you base your faith on other people then it really isn’t your faith. Everyone is a hypocrite in some respects because we’re human and everyone makes mistakes- it’s inevitable. Don’t know where that came from…” If you base what you believe on those around you and choose not to be or not to be a believer because of the people around you then there was never faith in the first place- just an image that you were trying to be like. With faith you believe regardless of what other people do because it is your choice to create your own view on things and issues. If everyone based what they did and didn’t do on those around them, where would our society be?
Also, you will notice that all those scriptures were from the Old Testament- they were part of the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9:9-15 describes how Jesus is the High Priest of a New Covenant. Throughout the Old Testament, God instituted what was called the Mosaic Covenant, with animal sacrifices provided to offer temporary covering for man’s sin and guilt. These animal sacrifices constituted the first blood covenant of the Old Testament- the Old Covenant. These animal sacrifices were conducted annually at a tabernacle that was symbolic of God’s eternal altar. In the Levitical sacrifices, the worshipers were not made perfect. Animal scarifies had to be repeated yearly. The ancient tabernacle had to be sanctified by the blood of animals. The Old Testament sacrifices were merely earthly copies of the heavenly altar.
What both the Old Testament and the New Testament teach us is that the universe and the throne room of God are not constructed randomly. God is a totally holy Being whose very presence cannot tolerate sin. The presence of God literally destroys sin with a burning, purifying fire. Obviously since man has been contaminated by sin, he would be destroyed instantly in the presence of God. God solved this problem through the blood of Jesus Christ. The blood of Jesus Christ actually takes away the sin from human beings so that God’s presence can be with them without destroying them. It makes it possible for us to enter into the throne room of God, because it totally purifies us and redeems us from sin. Hebrews 10:19-22 says:
“19So friends, we can boldly enter heaven’s Most Holy Place because of the blood of Jesus. 20This is the new, life-giving way that Christ has opened up for us through the sacred curtain, by means of his death for us. [The curtain in Jewish temple significance, being that only the priest can enter past it since he devoted his life to being holy. Jesus now acts as our priest before God. The “curtain” into God’s presence is his body. It is because of Him that we can approach God ourselves and do not need to get a priest to do it for us.] 21And since we have a great High Priest [Jesus] who rules over God’s people, 22let us go right into the presence of God, with true hearts fully trusting him, confident that we’re presentable inside and out.” (Taken from both the New Living Translation and the Message.)
Finished.
Comment by cathy — March 19, 2004 @ 8:37 pm