"The Passion" Trailer
07-15-03, 12:36 AM
#76
DVD Talk Hero
Good grief. If this kind of discussion is coming from just watching the trailer, I can't wait to see the fist fights that break out after the movie is released. 
I'm all for movies the invoke serious discussion. Way to go Mel...
I'm all for movies the invoke serious discussion. Way to go Mel...
07-15-03, 01:32 AM
#77
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally posted by Scot1458
Not to go off on a tagent, but if you really investiage the Whitechapelm murders and peel away fiction from fact, Moore is correct in that they were a few murders during that time. Everything else he presents is completley wrong. The doc on the disc isn't bad, but they still include alot of the crap in there (mostly stuff created by the London papers at the time.)
Not to go off on a tagent, but if you really investiage the Whitechapelm murders and peel away fiction from fact, Moore is correct in that they were a few murders during that time. Everything else he presents is completley wrong. The doc on the disc isn't bad, but they still include alot of the crap in there (mostly stuff created by the London papers at the time.)
The point is is that the doc on The Last Temptation Of Christ is hardly in the same league as fluff created for a new release. A lot of it is fluff, sad to say.
07-15-03, 09:35 AM
#78
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. That's all I can say. I haven't seen a trailer that impressive in ages. I left Roman Catholicism a long time ago and don't believe in Jesus as God, but damn, the trailer got to me. It was as if I were watching an old friend being tortured and mutilated. I can't wait to see it.
[nitpickmodeon] One thing that caught my attention is when Pontius Pilate states "Ecce H0m0!" He pronounces it "Etch-eh Ohmo." If I remember my Latin correctly, shouldn't it be pronounced "Ekk-eh H0m0" in accordance with the period? [nitpickmodeoff]
Please do correct if I am wrong.
Edit: I changed **** to H0m0. A little sensitive aren't we?
[nitpickmodeon] One thing that caught my attention is when Pontius Pilate states "Ecce H0m0!" He pronounces it "Etch-eh Ohmo." If I remember my Latin correctly, shouldn't it be pronounced "Ekk-eh H0m0" in accordance with the period? [nitpickmodeoff]
Please do correct if I am wrong.
Edit: I changed **** to H0m0. A little sensitive aren't we?
07-15-03, 10:09 AM
#79
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Tesiae
[nitpickmodeon] One thing that caught my attention is when Pontius Pilate states "Ecce H0m0!" He pronounces it "Etch-eh Ohmo." If I remember my Latin correctly, shouldn't it be pronounced "Ekk-eh H0m0" in accordance with the period? [nitpickmodeoff]
[nitpickmodeon] One thing that caught my attention is when Pontius Pilate states "Ecce H0m0!" He pronounces it "Etch-eh Ohmo." If I remember my Latin correctly, shouldn't it be pronounced "Ekk-eh H0m0" in accordance with the period? [nitpickmodeoff]
07-15-03, 10:37 AM
#80
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by Spooky
Well, I think the point was that he was tempted, not fooled (hence the title of the picture) - however, this is a bit of poetic license by Scorcese...the Bible only claims that Satan tempted Jesus at the beginning of his ministry...there's nothing to indicate that he was tempted while on the cross, although he does state that God has foresaken him...which may be an indication of temptation.
Well, I think the point was that he was tempted, not fooled (hence the title of the picture) - however, this is a bit of poetic license by Scorcese...the Bible only claims that Satan tempted Jesus at the beginning of his ministry...there's nothing to indicate that he was tempted while on the cross, although he does state that God has foresaken him...which may be an indication of temptation.
07-15-03, 10:38 AM
#81
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by audrey
Following the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek was the most universally understood language in the east. While there are those who argue that the original text for Mathew (and a few others) was written in Hebrew, certainly John (who was Greek) and Paul knew Greek. In any event, the earliest extant copy of the New Testament is in Greek; thus it remains the best source.
I’m not sure why you brought up Latin?
Following the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek was the most universally understood language in the east. While there are those who argue that the original text for Mathew (and a few others) was written in Hebrew, certainly John (who was Greek) and Paul knew Greek. In any event, the earliest extant copy of the New Testament is in Greek; thus it remains the best source.
I’m not sure why you brought up Latin?
A newspaper in Jerusalem has a different opinion. It doesn't make sense for the gospels to have been written in greek in their original form.
Jesus and his entourage wasn't very highly regarded by most of the local populace. They were so popular that Jesus was chosen to be crucified over Barabas. After the death of Jesus his followers preached to an uneducated population in the middle east with a very high rate of illiteracy. Those who could read or write could probably do so only in their local language. Why write something in a language that your audience won't understand?
Same thing with the early Christians. They took the preachings of the apostles and other original followers of Jesus and added their own ideas onto them. Aesop's fables originally came from these early Christians. How many of them could read greek?
07-15-03, 10:39 AM
#82
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by audrey
There are a number of different pronunciation systems for Latin; the two most common are the classical (sometimes called Roman, which attempts to model the dialect of the educated classes prior to the 3rd century or so) and the ecclesiastical system. Ecclesiastical Latin sounds somewhat like Italian; perhaps this is the approach they chose for the movie, though it would seem that the classical method would more closely approximate the dialect of the period.
There are a number of different pronunciation systems for Latin; the two most common are the classical (sometimes called Roman, which attempts to model the dialect of the educated classes prior to the 3rd century or so) and the ecclesiastical system. Ecclesiastical Latin sounds somewhat like Italian; perhaps this is the approach they chose for the movie, though it would seem that the classical method would more closely approximate the dialect of the period.
07-15-03, 12:08 PM
#83
Political Exile
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: America
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by al_bundy
http://jerusalem.edu/secure/past/main106.htm
A newspaper in Jerusalem has a different opinion. It doesn't make sense for the gospels to have been written in greek in their original form.
Jesus and his entourage wasn't very highly regarded by most of the local populace. They were so popular that Jesus was chosen to be crucified over Barabas. After the death of Jesus his followers preached to an uneducated population in the middle east with a very high rate of illiteracy. Those who could read or write could probably do so only in their local language. Why write something in a language that your audience won't understand?
Same thing with the early Christians. They took the preachings of the apostles and other original followers of Jesus and added their own ideas onto them. Aesop's fables originally came from these early Christians. How many of them could read greek?
http://jerusalem.edu/secure/past/main106.htm
A newspaper in Jerusalem has a different opinion. It doesn't make sense for the gospels to have been written in greek in their original form.
Jesus and his entourage wasn't very highly regarded by most of the local populace. They were so popular that Jesus was chosen to be crucified over Barabas. After the death of Jesus his followers preached to an uneducated population in the middle east with a very high rate of illiteracy. Those who could read or write could probably do so only in their local language. Why write something in a language that your audience won't understand?
Same thing with the early Christians. They took the preachings of the apostles and other original followers of Jesus and added their own ideas onto them. Aesop's fables originally came from these early Christians. How many of them could read greek?
Most likely all of them including Jesus himself.
Surely you don't believe that the Gospel of Luke was written in Hebrew or Aramaic (psst...he was Greek). Are far as the audience goes, the Hebrew christian community died out before the Gospels were written. And even if that were not the Case Jews have always been a very literate people. Part of their religious duty is to READ the Jewish scripture. While your link was interesting (whooa, they know were the Ark of the Covenant is....really the web is a dangerous place for facts), it provides no evidence of an non-Greek composed Gospel. The link provides no evidence and is clearly a religiously based publication, not without an agenda. The agenda of that article is to place the writting of the Gospels as close to the time of Christ as possible. Historical evidence places the writtings of the earliest Gospels to just after the destruction of Jerusalem, some 40 years after Christ's cruxifiction.
now here is a link that carries a bit more historical weight here
for the lazy I pulled out some interesting bits
L. Michael White:
Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin
Where did Jesus grow up and how would that have affected his world outlook?
Jesus grew up in Nazareth, a village in the Galilee. Now the Galilee, by most of the traditional accounts, is always portrayed as a kind of bucolic backwater ... cherubic peasants on the hillsides. And yet, our recent archaeological discoveries have shown this not to be the case. Nazareth, itself, is a village ... a small village at that. But, it stands less than four miles from a major urban center, Sepphoris. Now, we see Jesus growing up, not in the bucolic backwater, not... in the rural outback, but rather, on the fringes of a vibrant urban life.
And what kind of a city or town was Sepphoris?
Sepphoris was founded as the capitol of the Galilee. And so, it was really invested, much like Caesarea Maritima, with all the trappings of Greek or Roman city life as a major center of political activity for that region of the country. As a result, the excavations at Sepphoris have found extensive building programs, theaters, amphitheaters, and that sort of thing, just like Caesarea. What this tells us about the story of Jesus, though, is that Jesus himself would not have been far removed from that vibrant intersection of Greek culture, on the one hand, and traditional Jewish homeland culture on the other.
How cosmopolitan was Sepphoris? Was it multi-lingual?
Sepphoris seems to have been a very cosmopolitan city. We know that it was at least trilingual and maybe tetralingual. That is to say we know that they spoke Aramaic, the vernacular language of most people of the Jewish homeland, but Greek was also quite prominent as well. Some people probably used Latin, although not very many, one would guess. And maybe there are some other languages floating around in the immediate vicinity, as well, because of the various kinds of people that would have gone through Sepphoris. Sepphoris stood right on the major overland route between Caesarea, on the coast, and the Sea of Galilee.
Now, you may have mentioned this, but did they discover weights in different languages in Sepphoris?
The impact of this cosmopolitan trade center, Sepphoris, can be seen from the fact that weights were found, presumably from the marketplace. On one side of the weight, it's registered in Aramaic, on the other side, in Greek. Showing that people could be reading it from whichever tradition they might have come.
Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin
Where did Jesus grow up and how would that have affected his world outlook?
Jesus grew up in Nazareth, a village in the Galilee. Now the Galilee, by most of the traditional accounts, is always portrayed as a kind of bucolic backwater ... cherubic peasants on the hillsides. And yet, our recent archaeological discoveries have shown this not to be the case. Nazareth, itself, is a village ... a small village at that. But, it stands less than four miles from a major urban center, Sepphoris. Now, we see Jesus growing up, not in the bucolic backwater, not... in the rural outback, but rather, on the fringes of a vibrant urban life.
And what kind of a city or town was Sepphoris?
Sepphoris was founded as the capitol of the Galilee. And so, it was really invested, much like Caesarea Maritima, with all the trappings of Greek or Roman city life as a major center of political activity for that region of the country. As a result, the excavations at Sepphoris have found extensive building programs, theaters, amphitheaters, and that sort of thing, just like Caesarea. What this tells us about the story of Jesus, though, is that Jesus himself would not have been far removed from that vibrant intersection of Greek culture, on the one hand, and traditional Jewish homeland culture on the other.
How cosmopolitan was Sepphoris? Was it multi-lingual?
Sepphoris seems to have been a very cosmopolitan city. We know that it was at least trilingual and maybe tetralingual. That is to say we know that they spoke Aramaic, the vernacular language of most people of the Jewish homeland, but Greek was also quite prominent as well. Some people probably used Latin, although not very many, one would guess. And maybe there are some other languages floating around in the immediate vicinity, as well, because of the various kinds of people that would have gone through Sepphoris. Sepphoris stood right on the major overland route between Caesarea, on the coast, and the Sea of Galilee.
Now, you may have mentioned this, but did they discover weights in different languages in Sepphoris?
The impact of this cosmopolitan trade center, Sepphoris, can be seen from the fact that weights were found, presumably from the marketplace. On one side of the weight, it's registered in Aramaic, on the other side, in Greek. Showing that people could be reading it from whichever tradition they might have come.
07-15-03, 12:18 PM
#84
DVD Talk Hero
Wow...sorry I mentioned the Hebrew thing. The point is that the wrist was considered to be part of the hand and anyone saying "look at my hand" could easily be referring to the wrist as well (almost every discussion I found on Google made this point).
07-15-03, 01:20 PM
#85
Banned
The NT was not written in Greek. The Romans pretty much ended anything written/spoken in Hebrew, which is the sole purpose of the LXX in the first place. The translation of the OT into Greek done just before Christ's birth.
07-15-03, 01:44 PM
#86
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More on (yes that was intentional) The Shroud of Turin.
07-15-03, 03:31 PM
#87
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
An interesting perspective from Christian commentator (and former White House aid) Chuck Colson. I don't agree with everything he says but he makes an excellent point about "tolerance."---
Imagine for a moment that an Oscar-winning director, such as Steven Spielberg or Roman Polanski, announces that his next project will be an historical drama.
Now imagine that groups representing the people depicted in the film are demanding to see the script to see if it meets with their approval.
There’s no way that any responsible director would give in to those demands. And, in refusing, he’d have the whole-hearted support of what often is called "the creative community" and the First Amendment watchdogs.
The exception, of course, is if the history in question is the passion of our Lord, in which case creative freedom is expected to take a back seat to the demands of political correctness.
That’s what is happening with Mel Gibson’s upcoming film The Passion. The Passion tells the story of the twelve hours surrounding the Crucifixion. While The Passion is only the latest in a series of films about Jesus, it stands out for two reasons: First, it is unsparing and unsentimental. In Gibson’s opinion, previous cinematic efforts had failed to capture the enormity of Jesus’ suffering on our behalf.
In The Passion, the audience will see the full horror of those twelve hours onscreen. Stills from the film show actor Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus, covered in blood. Caviezel, like Gibson a devout Catholic, believes that the honest depiction of Jesus’ agony will serve to draw many "to the truth."
The second way that The Passion stands out is that it is entirely in Aramaic and Latin—no subtitles. Gibson is counting on the visuals and the audience’s basic familiarity with the story to allow him to go for the maximum in "realism" and "authenticity."
This quest for fidelity has made some people nervous. Even without seeing the film, some Jewish and Catholic leaders have accused Gibson’s film of fomenting "religious animosity" and even anti-Semitism. They worried that the film might blame "the Jews" for the death of Jesus. And they requested that a panel of scholars be allowed to review the script before the film’s release.
Gibson’s defenders include Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver. He wrote that he found it "puzzling and disturbing that anyone would feel licensed to attack a film of sincere faith before it has even been released." He reminded Gibson’s liberal critics that when The Last Temptation of Christ—an attack on the historic Jesus—came out, "movie critics piously lectured Catholics to be open-minded and tolerant. Surely that advice should apply equally for everyone."
Now imagine that groups representing the people depicted in the film are demanding to see the script to see if it meets with their approval.
There’s no way that any responsible director would give in to those demands. And, in refusing, he’d have the whole-hearted support of what often is called "the creative community" and the First Amendment watchdogs.
The exception, of course, is if the history in question is the passion of our Lord, in which case creative freedom is expected to take a back seat to the demands of political correctness.
That’s what is happening with Mel Gibson’s upcoming film The Passion. The Passion tells the story of the twelve hours surrounding the Crucifixion. While The Passion is only the latest in a series of films about Jesus, it stands out for two reasons: First, it is unsparing and unsentimental. In Gibson’s opinion, previous cinematic efforts had failed to capture the enormity of Jesus’ suffering on our behalf.
In The Passion, the audience will see the full horror of those twelve hours onscreen. Stills from the film show actor Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus, covered in blood. Caviezel, like Gibson a devout Catholic, believes that the honest depiction of Jesus’ agony will serve to draw many "to the truth."
The second way that The Passion stands out is that it is entirely in Aramaic and Latin—no subtitles. Gibson is counting on the visuals and the audience’s basic familiarity with the story to allow him to go for the maximum in "realism" and "authenticity."
This quest for fidelity has made some people nervous. Even without seeing the film, some Jewish and Catholic leaders have accused Gibson’s film of fomenting "religious animosity" and even anti-Semitism. They worried that the film might blame "the Jews" for the death of Jesus. And they requested that a panel of scholars be allowed to review the script before the film’s release.
Gibson’s defenders include Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver. He wrote that he found it "puzzling and disturbing that anyone would feel licensed to attack a film of sincere faith before it has even been released." He reminded Gibson’s liberal critics that when The Last Temptation of Christ—an attack on the historic Jesus—came out, "movie critics piously lectured Catholics to be open-minded and tolerant. Surely that advice should apply equally for everyone."
07-15-03, 03:56 PM
#88
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by al_bundy
http://jerusalem.edu/secure/past/main106.htm
A newspaper in Jerusalem has a different opinion. It doesn't make sense for the gospels to have been written in greek in their original form. (snip)
http://jerusalem.edu/secure/past/main106.htm
A newspaper in Jerusalem has a different opinion. It doesn't make sense for the gospels to have been written in greek in their original form. (snip)
Unfortunately, the original language of the New Testament isn’t a question that can be solved thru common sense. It may not make sense to you that at least some of the text was written in Greek, yet that is what the preponderance of the evidence suggests.
I don’t pretend to be a Biblical scholar; I’m not even a Christian. I did, however, complete my undergraduate and original post-graduate work in classical languages so it’s a topic that I am somewhat familiar with. I think what you are missing is that Greek was a fairly common and widely understood language at this time. The historical record is spotty; informed people can reach different conclusions. But regardless of which language (or languages) the NT was written in, the earliest surviving copy is in Greek; therefore the Greek text remains the single best source.
Although interesting, none of these questions have anything to do w/ the movie or the trailer, so I won’t consume any more bandwidth on this OT discussion.
07-15-03, 04:16 PM
#89
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Eh, realism and authenticity do not a good picture make. It can very well drift into exploitation. And, reading about Gibson's enthusiasm it may be of a "reverent" kind, if that. My opinion of him as a director, or more my opinion of Braveheart, is a great admiration for the technical aspects. I'm ambivalent about everything else.
So here's Mel with another period piece. And he's being extremely faithful to the source. So where's he going to make his mark? Sounds like in the violence, under the guise of historical accuracy. He's going to show us what we couldn't see before. Everything we wanted to see about Jesus but were afraid to look, right?
Now, this can be good or bad. It all rests in the hands of the man at the helm. Let's hope his personal investment in the movie yields something worthwhile.
As for the trailer . . . just a typical trailer, no big deal going on here.
So here's Mel with another period piece. And he's being extremely faithful to the source. So where's he going to make his mark? Sounds like in the violence, under the guise of historical accuracy. He's going to show us what we couldn't see before. Everything we wanted to see about Jesus but were afraid to look, right?
Now, this can be good or bad. It all rests in the hands of the man at the helm. Let's hope his personal investment in the movie yields something worthwhile.
As for the trailer . . . just a typical trailer, no big deal going on here.
07-15-03, 06:54 PM
#91
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Though I am looking forward to this one, it will be odd to hear it in a language I do not understand without subtitles. I wonder what the rationale is behind no subtitles...?
07-15-03, 06:58 PM
#92
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by uteotw
I wonder what the rationale is behind no subtitles...?
I wonder what the rationale is behind no subtitles...?
07-15-03, 07:01 PM
#93
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally posted by bahist17
Gibson figured people would be familiar enough w/ the story and it would be a visual experience like silent films were.
Gibson figured people would be familiar enough w/ the story and it would be a visual experience like silent films were.
07-15-03, 08:21 PM
#94
DVD Talk Hero
He's already changed his mind about the subtitles:
http://us.imdb.com/WN?20030702#1
Mel Gibson has performed a spectacular U-turn over his controversial movie about Jesus Christ's last hours - he's decided to include subtitles after all. Gibson shocked Hollywood after announcing The Passion, which stars Jim Caviezel as Jesus and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, would be shot in Aramaic language without the aid of subtitles - but now a Christian focus group invited to a screening of the film insists it has too many subtitles. One viewer tells American website The Scoop, "I don't know if Mel was ever serious about not having any subtitles. If he was, he has moved beyond that now. The version I saw actually had too many subtitles. We don't need distracting translations flashing on the screen when the Roman soldiers are saying obvious things like, 'Hey, you, move!' Mel noted that they were going to eliminate some of the subtitles in future edits." Meanwhile, those lucky enough to catch the rough screening rave about The Passion - and dismiss accusations it is anti-Semitic. Another viewer tells The Scoop, "The Passion is a stunning work of art. It is a devout act of worship from Mel and his collaborators. Let's get the controversy out of the way right at the top. The film is faithful to the Gospel, particularly St. John. It is no more anti-Semitic than is the Gospel."
07-17-03, 12:22 PM
#96
DVD Talk Legend
God, so many people want this movie to fail.
IMDb reports this gossip as "news":
This kind of negative buzz is pretty outrageous.
IMDb reports this gossip as "news":
New Fears for Gibson's 'Passion'
Mel Gibson's biblical epic The Passion is being tipped for box-office failure - because it's too violent. The movie, which charts the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus Christ, has already caused a storm of controversy ahead of it's 2004 release, with critics deriding Gibson's decision to shoot the film in ancient language Aramaic, and religious groups who questioned Gibson's interpretation of the subject matter. But it seems The Passion's lack of subtitles and its storyline are the least of Gibson's worries - according to sources, the film will flop because of its "violent and graphic nature". According to a friend of the movie maker, scenes sure to shock include a "horrific depiction of the crucifixion - worse than the graphic scenes in (Gibson's Oscar-winning film) Braveheart". According to American gossip site The Scoop, Gibson has held several small private screenings - including subtitles he intends to remove from the finished version - for a select group of clerics, and is taking advice only from them. The pal tells The Scoop, "Mel is making notes and small changes on the advice of the bishops and rabbis who have seen it, in order that he can assure accuracy. Mel won't listen to anybody on this. We are hoping he keeps the subtitles in, or there really is no chance for the movie. No one will go see it, especially if they can't understand it. His friends are working on him but so far, nothing can get through to him." But Gibson's friend is quick to dismiss early fears the film would paint an ant-Semitic picture, "In the movie (as in the New Testament), the Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews. It is in no way anti-Semitic."
Mel Gibson's biblical epic The Passion is being tipped for box-office failure - because it's too violent. The movie, which charts the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus Christ, has already caused a storm of controversy ahead of it's 2004 release, with critics deriding Gibson's decision to shoot the film in ancient language Aramaic, and religious groups who questioned Gibson's interpretation of the subject matter. But it seems The Passion's lack of subtitles and its storyline are the least of Gibson's worries - according to sources, the film will flop because of its "violent and graphic nature". According to a friend of the movie maker, scenes sure to shock include a "horrific depiction of the crucifixion - worse than the graphic scenes in (Gibson's Oscar-winning film) Braveheart". According to American gossip site The Scoop, Gibson has held several small private screenings - including subtitles he intends to remove from the finished version - for a select group of clerics, and is taking advice only from them. The pal tells The Scoop, "Mel is making notes and small changes on the advice of the bishops and rabbis who have seen it, in order that he can assure accuracy. Mel won't listen to anybody on this. We are hoping he keeps the subtitles in, or there really is no chance for the movie. No one will go see it, especially if they can't understand it. His friends are working on him but so far, nothing can get through to him." But Gibson's friend is quick to dismiss early fears the film would paint an ant-Semitic picture, "In the movie (as in the New Testament), the Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews. It is in no way anti-Semitic."
This kind of negative buzz is pretty outrageous.
07-17-03, 05:04 PM
#97
Banned
I wonder what has people so scared....liberals and athiests are screaming bloody murder about it. I'm sure Ebert will pan it as he panned GODS AND GENEARLS.
Gibson’s defenders include Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver. He wrote that he found it "puzzling and disturbing that anyone would feel licensed to attack a film of sincere faith before it has even been released." He reminded Gibson’s liberal critics that when The Last Temptation of Christ—an attack on the historic Jesus—came out, "movie critics piously lectured Catholics to be open-minded and tolerant. Surely that advice should apply equally for everyone."
how true.
Gibson’s defenders include Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver. He wrote that he found it "puzzling and disturbing that anyone would feel licensed to attack a film of sincere faith before it has even been released." He reminded Gibson’s liberal critics that when The Last Temptation of Christ—an attack on the historic Jesus—came out, "movie critics piously lectured Catholics to be open-minded and tolerant. Surely that advice should apply equally for everyone."
how true.
07-17-03, 07:19 PM
#98
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The irony in all of this "interpretation" discussion is that anyone who thinks the Bible should be taken literally needs to take a few steps back and re-evaluate when this stuff was written. A comparison of the Gospels shows ALOT of overlap among them (such as Markan priority and Matthean priority).
Each of these works was written for specific groups (which explains why wise men were used in one story and shepherds in another: to compensate for different socio-economic backgrounds). The only way to get a GOOD handle on this material is to read it in it's orginal Greek form, which even that has been altered and edited over time.
Also, to say that the Bible must be taken literally today does not hold b/c Greek had no punctuation in it, so it is virtually impossible to interpret the tone of voice that was used by Jesus during many passages or even the tone used by the disciples. Oh, and the disciples...at no point in time are the same 12 present in the same place.
The reason there is no consensus on ANY of this NT material is because there is so much scholarly work that goes in so many different directions. If there is so much debate over just this movie, I wish someone would try to make a film about the Book of Revelation...that would start some fights!
EDIT: I finally got to watch the trailer just now...WOW. Can't wait...Biblical stuff fascinates me, so this should be very interesting to see.
Each of these works was written for specific groups (which explains why wise men were used in one story and shepherds in another: to compensate for different socio-economic backgrounds). The only way to get a GOOD handle on this material is to read it in it's orginal Greek form, which even that has been altered and edited over time.
Also, to say that the Bible must be taken literally today does not hold b/c Greek had no punctuation in it, so it is virtually impossible to interpret the tone of voice that was used by Jesus during many passages or even the tone used by the disciples. Oh, and the disciples...at no point in time are the same 12 present in the same place.
The reason there is no consensus on ANY of this NT material is because there is so much scholarly work that goes in so many different directions. If there is so much debate over just this movie, I wish someone would try to make a film about the Book of Revelation...that would start some fights!
EDIT: I finally got to watch the trailer just now...WOW. Can't wait...Biblical stuff fascinates me, so this should be very interesting to see.
Last edited by reubs82; 07-17-03 at 07:47 PM.
07-17-03, 10:13 PM
#99
Banned
Rebus82
few thoughts, kind of a rebuttle, all in good nature.
1) there is no consensus on the reason for the overlaping. Theories yes, but an actual answer, no. Nor is there a concensus on any priority (although I believe Peter's Mark is still the earliest)
2) Amazing how these dicsciples on one hand were stupid fisherman,, yet brillitant enough to speak to "different social-economic backgrounds". If fact I would say that your assesment is totally incorrect. Economics had nothing to do with it, culture and politics did. Even then, there are two main camps. The Christian Jews, and the non-Christian Jews. Paul's letters are more specific to whatever church he was talking to.
3) What does "literary"mean? Do you deny the existence of the historical Jesus?
4) Yes, the 12 were all together for the Last Supper. I'm sure there were other times, I can find them later if you wish.
5) The earliest Greek MSSs are very, very accurate. There are a few questions, spellings, words, and the portion of Jesus writting in the sand is a question, but most of the NT is in agreement with each other. And we have many, many copies of such material.
6) I think you mean Heberew doesn't have punctuation in it, I believe Greek does. And it's not a difficult language to read. Again,you may be thinking of Hebrew.
7 The book of Relevation we could discuss til the cows come home.
few thoughts, kind of a rebuttle, all in good nature.
1) there is no consensus on the reason for the overlaping. Theories yes, but an actual answer, no. Nor is there a concensus on any priority (although I believe Peter's Mark is still the earliest)
2) Amazing how these dicsciples on one hand were stupid fisherman,, yet brillitant enough to speak to "different social-economic backgrounds". If fact I would say that your assesment is totally incorrect. Economics had nothing to do with it, culture and politics did. Even then, there are two main camps. The Christian Jews, and the non-Christian Jews. Paul's letters are more specific to whatever church he was talking to.
3) What does "literary"mean? Do you deny the existence of the historical Jesus?
4) Yes, the 12 were all together for the Last Supper. I'm sure there were other times, I can find them later if you wish.
5) The earliest Greek MSSs are very, very accurate. There are a few questions, spellings, words, and the portion of Jesus writting in the sand is a question, but most of the NT is in agreement with each other. And we have many, many copies of such material.
6) I think you mean Heberew doesn't have punctuation in it, I believe Greek does. And it's not a difficult language to read. Again,you may be thinking of Hebrew.
7 The book of Relevation we could discuss til the cows come home.
07-17-03, 11:46 PM
#100
Moderator
Originally posted by Scot1458
I wonder what has people so scared....liberals and athiests are screaming bloody murder about it.
I wonder what has people so scared....liberals and athiests are screaming bloody murder about it.
I'm sure Ebert will pan it as he panned GODS AND GENEARLS.