Theologian on The Passion: "... then we should not worship that God."

Without preface, from the Toronto Star:

Now, in the words of the most famous Tiassa of all time, "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet."

Crossan is not necessarily calling for atheism. He really is that upset at Mel, apparently. He finds the film too greatly influenced by an 18-19th century Augustinian nun, and also Mel Gibson: "The movie is 5 per cent from the Gospels, 80 per cent from Anne Catherine Emmerich and the rest from Gibson. If she was copyrighted, he'd be sued, or she would get a major screenwriting credit."

Crossan does hold to that old fear of original sin; Gibson hasn't considered the Muslim world; Gibson hasn't considered the anti-Semitism that is ... and I use this sparingly, and only because it reflects Crossan and I've quoted enough of the article ... part and parcel of being European.

Now, first off, I understand both sides of the Muslim-world argument. And I side with the, "Why should Gibson care?" aspect here. People need to take this film--any cinematic production--with more than a grain of salt. A line of coke, and then the grains of salt that go with a shot of tequila. Above all else, it's art.

But Crossan presumes the worst in Gibson, he presumes the worst in the European psychospiritual and intellecutal climate.

And he presumes the worst in his fellow Christians. Of course, on this occasion he might have reason--Gibson's film seems to resound with many faithful; after all, it was the prayers and perspectives of fellow pastors that seems to have set his fears alight; perhaps only then did the magnitude of the box office receipts and a reasonably absurd episode of South Park become clear to him.

But what if by next year nobody cares? What if the debate rages as such--and perhaps that is part of his point--that everyone's sick of it? And it's just another campy film, only a notch more tolerable than the Zeffirelli . . . really, I don't know how I feel about that film . . . for being modern and glitzy and apparently violent. Jesus Christ is as European as Richard Barthelmess is Chinese. (Note: I've still not made it to see the film, I only point to the notion that this film seems much more accessible to many people than the Zef's Jesus of Nazareth miniseries. Of course, there is the matter of length.

At any rate, I digress . . . apologies for that.

But it's a fascinating little twist. Oh, and who the hell is Crossan? Click here for the essential resume.

So I guess the issue is, "What happens if The Passion reignites faith, but a 'bad faith'?"
_____________________

- Toronto Star. "Christian scholar questions Gison's depiction of Jesus." April 10, 2004. See http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...742&call_pageid=991479973472&col=991929131147

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gibson has never believed his movie to be in anyway authoritative. It has always been his movie and intepretation, formed from the bible along with other material from Ann Catherine Emmerich.

Now if we have more <em>historical</em> evidence for some of the miracles of Emmerich, how can Crossan's view be supported? He's rejecting certain Christian doctrines since they may not be historical, while withholding the very evidence the biblical story is true.

Gibsons' interpretation of the crucifixion, however it may be formed, is essentially what all Christians do. Jesus was sacrificed for us, and therefore Gibson has the freedom to view Christ personally, withholding even his historical perception if he chooses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that IS the problem, and for some, this film just raised the big question again: What is art? What value does art have?

We can say, "It's art" and take the l'art pour l'art POV.
But then we also have to accept that art does not carry any social relevance or value, since it is there for it's own sake. From this POV, nobody can judge anything made by art, including this film. Meaning that the reactions of people, who were shocked, worried and appaled by "The Passion of Christ" are misplaced.

Or, we can say that art has social relevance and value; it is not there for it's own sake. But then we have to define our values and define sanctions for those who tresspass those values. But this sounds tyrannic. It sounds of Communism, it sounds of Nazism and other ideologies which have used what was considered art for their explicit purposes.

Question: "What happens if The Passion reignites faith, but a 'bad faith'?"
Bad faith in what sense?
That it ignites a tyrannic faith? That it could be like a call to fundamentalism (of all kinds)?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No time for a longer post now just a couple of comments
1. Thank God Monty Python is rereleasing "Life of Brian" as a counter balance

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

2.There was an instance here in norway of a former neonazi coming out and confessing to some fatal bombings in the early 90s after seeing the film and being filled with remorse.

 

Ah ah ah. But the burning question remains.

What if "Life of Brian" ignites a faith even worse than that ignited by the Passion of the Christ? Or even worse, somehow mutates it? Imagine the consequences.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

-- Long live the Female Messiah!

 

You can watch the Passion and be baffled at the violence. But this is in no way gratuitous. Ever seen Saving Private Ryan? Isn't that blood shed to save the world from the Nazis? Isn't the movie making a point?

The Passion is a movie that portrays

THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT IN THE HISTORY OF TIME!

 

I think christians are retarded for lining the pockets of an already rich man. If I was ever going to make a movie I would make a christian movie first. That way I would be pretty much set for life, cause even if it sucked arse like Gibson's movie, I'd still make a killing from all the christians going to see it in america alone.

The cross is a fallacy though. It's nothing like what the romans used to string people up on. And jesus is never depicted as he would've been physically. And why don christians believe the man but not what he himself believed. He was jewish. Why aren't christians jewish when the man they worship was jewish?

 

You mean the single most important fiction in the history of modern religion.

 

...not that Jesus was not crucified, he certainly was, but the role of the Jews as instigators is false, they would have sided with him as a rebel against Roman rule.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/ch12.htm

 

Okay, apparently you seem not to understand. This was not pointless violence. This was the true story of our savior suffering for us. In our place.

Did this movie even make you think a little?

Maybe like, "Why are they doing that to him?"

This was an intense experience, undoubtedly. But this gore, and every drop of Jesus' blood, saved my sinful ass from hell. And I am incredibly grateful.

It was a reminder to us what Jesus went through for our sake.

Thou shalt not judge whilst thou knowest not.

You don't. You really don't know. I know that you may think "Stupid Christians think they know everything." We don't. But what we are assured is eternal life. You are bitter towards us because you haven't experienced Jesus. And don't tell me you have. Because when you establish a relationship with Jesus, you're saved. You hate me because I love you enough to tell you how you can spend eternity with Jesus and the rest of us Christians.

Isn't it funny how the truth tends to hurt the most?

Jesus is knocking at your door.

It's your freedom to open it or not. But my God, I pray you do.

Yours in Christ,

Kevin

 

Rosa Magika

The "bad faith" of the question can be any of those--tyrannic, fundamentalist, explosive.

By example, one of the reasons I have such a simmering mistrust of Christianity (which sentiment is a major reduction from hostilities held earlier in life), is not so much that Christian organizations pursue "Christian policy" in society--everybody should argue their interest to a degree--but that they do so as dishonestly as commerce in general, or, say, tobacco in specific.

What if, to take a neutral example, you're a bioethics instructor who argues ethics unethically? Is there something self-defeating in the communication? Generally so. It becomes an awfully large expenditure of one's resources in such a manner as will generally move someone further from their acknowledged goals.

How does any philosophical believer (not necessarily Christianity in specific or religion in general) come to a point where they might insist that ideological or superficial supremacy under the law is the only thing that satisfies their need for equality?

If you say, "That person should not be allowed to sing that song (say those words, write that essay, &c) because it offends my personal beliefs," should you really be able to follow that with a claim of, "I'm defending free speech," and expect people to take you seriously? But if we don't take them seriously, then we must all be anti-_____ bigots.

And then it's like a dog chasing its tail. Well and fine, but don't tell me he's taking the express to Portland.

In a semi-applicable sense, I keep a slightly-amused eye toward the anti-Semitism debate. The highlights, as I understand it:

• Fear: The Passion is anti-Semitic. (Support? Mel Gibson's father is anti-Semitic.)
• Response: The Passion isn't anti-Semitic. It's based on the Bible.
• Crossan: The Passion isn't "based on the Bible."
• Open question: Where does the alleged anti-Semitism in The Passion come from?
• Possible responses: Gibson; a figment of Jewish and liberal paranoia or mere oversensitivity; an Augustine nun (I have some reading to do on that, so I include her to keep the issue broad) . . . what's missing? Well, what many of us, but not necessarily the principals in the public debate can acknowledge: There is the possibility that The Bible itself is anti-Semitic.

Look at all the people running around because of this movie. Listen to them murmur and chatter. Very slim is the amount of discussion given to the historical anti-Semitism of the Bible. And the thing is that people shouldn't necessarily be afraid of that discussion in the public sphere; it is easy enough to show that the anti-Semitism was political opposition. That Christians claimed to be a new species of organism is an interesting moment, but by and large it's easy to see that as Christians sought social and political legitimacy, the Jews were clearly in the way. Additionally, as "Jesus" was a Jew, Christians chose the necessity of separating themselves from Jews. Early apologists are rife with anti-Judaic ramblings.

How many people will walk out of that film with their faith renewed or revitalized? But will they pause to consider what their faith would indicate? Crossan did, and he can't stomach it. Personally, I think he's too much of a (female anatomic expletive suggesting reduced manhood and tolerance for adversity) to carry the burden if two hours of gratuitous propaganda can bring him to declare, ". . . then we should not believe in this God."

But bad faith, inasmuch as I've invoked the term, simply refers to any faith that is--intentionally or accidentally--dishonestly-founded and intended.

(I just looked at the Introduction to Sister Anne Catherine's "The Passion"--see link above--and it's ... it's going to be a tough read; I'll have a hard time keeping a straight face.)

As a general note

I would like to advocate a couple of resources here:

• Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York: Vintage, 1994.
• Early Church Fathers - http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

Pagels' book simply discusses the evolution of the Gospels in relation to the historical period in which they were developed. A review of the book by a vicar, of all people, can be found here; seriously, I encourage all who examine and debate issues of Christianity to keep this book nearby.

There is in Pagels' book a reasonable vindication of the Jews. So I thought it worth mentioning.

The ECF site is merely a collection of early Christian writings, and you'll find in some of them a prevailing and pointed anti-Judaism that, while two-dimensional and political in its nature, (A) reflects something of the period following Jesus' death, and (B) sets the tone for the next nineteen-hundred years.

If you're in a secondhand bookstore and find a copy of Early Christian Writings, translated by Maxwell Staniforth (Penguin, 1968) snag it.

I find Pagels and Staniforth--and therefore the ECF site which covers more than Staniforth's volume--invaluable resources.

 

Jesus never claimed that, he was murdered as a rebel.

How? the only possible explanation I can accept is that this story exposed many people to his teaching, which may have spiritual benefits.

Jesus didn't want people to have a relationship with his memory, he wanted for them to experience a connection with God. He expressed this connection with the word "son". Christianity today has little to do with the teachings of Jesus.

 

I agree; Jesus wouldn't care less if we believe he existed or not, whether we worship him or not. It's the message he was trying to get across that matters.

 

Did this movie even make you think a little?
It made me think, 'that christian god is one sick bastard, he is all powerful but lets this atrocity happen because there is no other way he can make it so we're close to him?' This god sounds not only like a sicko to me, but a rather pathetic 'all powerful' god as well.

Maybe like, "Why are they doing that to him?"
Or maybe, 'this was how they treated most criminals, just or unjustly accused'.

This was an intense experience, undoubtedly. But this gore, and every drop of Jesus' blood, saved my sinful ass from hell. And I am incredibly grateful.
In your opinion and nothing else. And doesn't it make you even a little bit uncomfortable that your faith is based of gore and blood? This wasn't sacrifice, this was butchery, and you revel in it because you think it saves your ass. Nice one.

It was a reminder to us what Jesus went through for our sake.
I think you're talking about the movie here at which point I have to remind you about money. Yes, this movie was made to remind us. Not to generate an income for a movie studio. Which was huge.

I know that you may think "Stupid Christians think they know everything." We don't.
No, I happen to think that christianity teaches close mindedness but what I think is stupid is how you all flocked to see a sub par movie and still found it 'inspiring'.

But what we are assured is eternal life.
No you aren't assured eternal life. And once again I call into question eternal life as it would suck. What would you do in heaven for eternity? It would be excruciatingly boring. If it were possible I would think heaven has quite a high suicide rate.

You are bitter towards us because you haven't experienced Jesus. And don't tell me you have.
No, I haven't experienced jesus but I'm definately not bitter about it. When I look at your beliefs and actions what is there to be bitter about? I have to impart on you how wrong you are, and it is also here that I point out Stupid Christians think they know everything. This is what you said, not me, but I thought it might be appropriate to remind you of all the assupmtions you are making about me and other people. You are indeed showing that you think you know things when you don't.

You hate me because I love you enough to tell you how you can spend eternity with Jesus and the rest of us Christians.
I tell you, I don't know why christians can bandy the word 'hate' about with such reckless abandon. I don't think I hate anything, the word is to strong, implies to many things. I don't think you love me, in fact I hope you don't because love without respect is pure crap. I don't hate you buddy. I just feel sorry for you. Because you believe what you are saying. I just get annoyed by christians 'better than you' pomposity.

Isn't it funny how the truth tends to hurt the most?
I don't know. You tend to ignore it the most. Why don't you tell me?

Jesus is knocking at your door.
No, he's not. I have never felt anything to indicate otherwise and I didn't know anything about religion till I was about 10 or 11. No natural inclination, nothing. The thought of having some guy hang around a bunch of self absorbed humans wanting their love has always sounded utterly stupid to me.

It's your freedom to open it or not. But my God, I pray you do.
Please don't. It indicates you think I need your help, but you're wrong here again. I don't want to go to heaven, I don't believe in heaven or hell. When I die I hope I just die.

Yours in science

a

 

What happens if The Passion reignites faith, but a 'bad faith'?"
reason,logic reality goes down the crapper

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yo Jesusislorddude...

Hey Kev,

Quote JILD
"This was not pointless violence."

Any violence is pointless dude.

Quote JILD
"Thou shalt not judge whilst thou knowest not."

This applies to you too Kev.

Quote JILD
"You don't. You really don't know. I know that you may think "Stupid Christians think they know everything." We don't. But what we are assured is eternal life.

The truth is dude, you don`t know either. Your faith is all you have. You have no gaurantee. Show me your ticket to heaven.

Do some independant, non-biblical research on the historicity of Jesus, and see what the contempory chroniclers have to offer.

Take it easy.

 

And why was he murdered as a rebel? Because he claimed that he was God.

Human corruption tried to prevent Him from showing everybody the truth. In reality, it was this corruption that wove into God's plan for him to die on the cross in order to save us from our sins.

Jesus DOES claim he died for our sins:

"Why are you reasoning in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, 'your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'rise up and walk'? But that you may know that the son of man has power on earth to forgive sins."
-Luke 5:22-25

Well, it goes kind of like this:

We have all sinned at least once. Sin can be defined as any evil or rebellion against God. Since God is perfect, he cannot be in the presence of sin, or vice versa. In order to get into heaven, you need to be absolutely perfect. But nobody can be. In Romans 6:23 it says: "The wages of sin is death." This creates a conflict. Death in this context means eternal separation from God, aka Hell.

God is just. He cannot assign a penalty and just let it skate. He is totally fair. And everybody deserves hell. But since he created us for the sake of a fellowship with us, that creates a conflict too.

So God, in his brilliance, devised a plan. He would come to earth in the form of His Son, Jesus, and take the punishment upon himself. The sin itself is punished and we are excused. And this is exactly what happened.

You saw this brutality because it was what Jesus went through. It did not show how sick God was, but rather how incredibly merciful He is that He himself would go through our punishment. The sin of the world was put upon Jesus and crucified. The reason that you cannot put the sin of the world upon some other person is because it had to be a sinless sacrifice. Otherwise, that person would just be suffering his righteous judgement because of his or her sin. The sacrifice had to be like God, or God himself.

"For He was pierced for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the punishment for our peace was upon Him, and by his stripes we are healed."

-Isaiah 53:5

John

The church heirarchy, in its corruption, maybe. But Christianity in itself and those who follow its truth are all about Jesus' teachings. If you have ever read the gospels with an open mind in a good, Jesus-focused church, you would know that Christian doctrines are altogether for Jesus.

I am still praying for all of you.

Yours in Christ,

Kevin

 

There is no other way. Because if God did not punish our sins righteously and just "excuse" them, then he would not be perfectly just. And He is. This is an act of love. It is His mercy. We all deserve to go through what Jesus did and more. But since Jesus was sinless, He was able to take all our sin upon himself and destroy it. It needed to happen for God to be just. And it also needed to happen for God to be merciful.

Keep in mind that God still loves you even though you call him a sick bastard. It was this "Sick Bastardry" that gives you the option of heaven.

Or maybe, "We would all suffer this and worse if He didn't for us."

Actually, My faith is based on mercy and love because of this blood and gore. Would you go through that for somebody else so they might spend eternity with you? Especially if you had the power to get rid of all your suffering, get up, and kick some roman ass?

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"

He could have just said, "Touch me with that nail and God's foot will kick you in the scrawny Roman nads."

But did He? No! Jesus was tempted by satan every second to do that.

He endured to save us.

It isn't Gibson's or Jesus' fault that it costs money to make movies. So many people were touched, the movie spread like wildfire.

Notice that since this movie was not politically correct enough to make the likes of you happy, Gibson's career in films is undoubtedly over.

Have you ever seen a Jewish or Muslim movie protested against? No, rather they are encouraged. But when Jesus enters the picture, people are all of a sudden offended about anti-semetism. This reeks of satan at work.

And don't tell me it is because people hate Christians. Jesus is the most sound, most loving way to live your life. Have you ever met a real christian? You are talking to one.

Thou shalt not judge whilst thou knowest not.

Being that you refuse to accept Jesus and what He did for you, why do you tell me it is stupid?

 

If you took the time to read the Gospels, you would know that Jesus' message IS to believe in Him and worship him:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believed in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 3:16