Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Tyrone Shoelaces With Some New Details On Mel Gibson's THE PASSION!!

Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.

I’m flat-out fascinated by this one. No matter what it turns out to be, it’s going to be one of the most-discussed films this year. Already, the controversy seems to be explosive, and no one’s seen any footage. Mel’s got the right idea... he’s facing his critics head on and talking about the film already, and based on the little bits I’ve heard from people who are close to the production, it’s going to be unique among cinematic depictions of Christ.

Here’s one of our chat room regulars with some details on a new appearance by Gibson:

Mel Gibson gave an exclusive interview to the EWTN program The World Over Live with host Raymond Arroyo and talked about The Passion. Here are the highlights:

Gibson wanted the film accurate "down to the clothes they wear" and "the eating habits of the Jews..."

Arroyo said, "Jim [Caviezel]was the most Jewish looking Christ I've seen."

Gibson will digitally re-color Caviezel's eyes.

In regards to the business aspect (i.e. spending the money on this) Gibson says he's "gotta do it," it means that much to him.

Gibson told a story about turning Scorsese down for the role of Christ in The Last Temptation of Christ because he had read the book and didn't think it was his idea of fair or accurate.

Caught the quickest glimpse of Caviezel in character: he is pretty much unrecognizable.

In regards to past statements about retiring from acting Gibson says he has a few more in him.

Talking about potential backlash Gibson said, "It won't be boring."

It was not an easy shoot; nearly everyone got sick, including the flu.

Gibson said the running time would be about 90 minutes as two hours would be overwhelming.

Jim Caviezel will be on the program in a couple weeks.

Make sure to let us know when that’s going to be, Tyrone, so we can tune in and see if they show any more footage of any sort, and thanks for this!

"Moriarty" out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 17, 2003, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Gibson wanted the film accurate "down to the clothes they wear"

    by oceansized

    Except Jesus will still be played by a white guy cuz, well ya know, have him played by a dark skinned man like he actually was would be TOO disturbing for people.

  • March 17, 2003, 11:26 a.m. CST


    by Aronld Scazziger

    eating habits? clothes? yeah right! til 2day NOBODY fuckin knows who Jesus really was, or if he even EXISTED. The "stories" in the bible were MADE UP to fit the interests of a religion. The guy is an invention to CONTROL the masses of these ancient times, so they didn't run off to other prophets. 'The Passion' will be as accurate as any other story bout a legend who has lived 2000 years ago.

  • March 17, 2003, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Good for Mel...

    by youngdrunkmick

    glad to see him flip the critics the bird and sack up on a project that he really cares about. I can't wait to see this film, though what's the digital eye coloring all about (just a question, though I'm guessing just making the eyes darker)? Christ, all this talk of our lord savior reminds me... I need a drink.

  • March 17, 2003, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Arnold Scazziger

    by youngdrunkmick

    As a kid raised catholic it goes without saying that I'm not the biggest fan of religion. That aside, it's important to point out that there is proof that Jesus existed around the time period stated in the Bible, and that he was caring and preached forgivness etc. Now as for the son of God thing... well... I need a drink.

  • March 17, 2003, 11:37 a.m. CST

    I hate to tell ya, but there are these nifty things called colou

    by Heleno

    Just a suggestion

  • March 17, 2003, 11:40 a.m. CST

    A realistic christ?

    by memoryman

    If we're going for realistic, how bout the fact that The New Testament was written by St Paul, a man who never actually met the real, historical Jesus, and who was also the leader of a rival sect to the one that Jesus' brother ran. I wonder which was closer to the original... Also I assume we can rely on Mel to give the Romans english accents, thus continuing the Gibson crusade against the evil english of the past - I would seriously put money on it. Why can't he get over his prejudices, he'd make some great films! Bring back Willem Dafoe to play Jesus and David Bowie as Pontius Pilate. Also we need more Harvey Keitel as Judas.

  • March 17, 2003, 11:45 a.m. CST

    It will be VERY historically accurate...

    by Klam Bake

    ... Just like Robin Hood, Sinbad, Hercules and other films about myths and legends.

  • March 17, 2003, 11:57 a.m. CST

    the romans killed many "prophets"

    by vultureman

    Those "prophets" were interfering will the power of the priesthood. Since being a temple priest was a lllifelong sinecsure, the romans were encouraged to put down the opposition. So this Jeus guy could have looked like a roman, a greek, an indian, a persian, or even a semite. They all died, this was the one guy who's story got told.

  • March 17, 2003, 11:58 a.m. CST

    BIG Mythtake...

    by Aragorn II

    Come on, people. Just because you don't endorse Christianity, don't show your ignorance by claiming that Christ is a myth on the level of Hercules. Go read your Josephus. Or just talk about things you understand. Peace out.

  • March 17, 2003, 12:08 p.m. CST

    historical jesus

    by manox

    like it or not, there is historical evidence of Jesus being a real person that does not come from the Bible. The Jewish culture of that time period is very well documented, so I think that figuring out elements of their daily life will not be that difficult. As for St. Paul writing the New Testament, that too is incorrect. It's ok to have a problem with Christianity, but if you're going to post about history you should have more than an uninformed opinion.

  • March 17, 2003, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Passion: A Christian 'Blair Witch Project'

    by zinc_chameleon

    Mel's got it right; conservative (very) catholic or not. He's pushing the passion of Christ as a CULT film, one that will take many Christians by surprise, and especially young Christians. Imagine this on DVD, adding subtitle, and how-tos for Latin and Aramaic, and even koine Greek, the language the New Testament was written in. I've oftened wondered how to interest young students in classical languages--mine are Latin, Greek, and some Sanscrit--and this approach really nails it.

  • March 17, 2003, 12:18 p.m. CST


    by AnyaOrmsby

    Gibson does make great movies. Just leave your PC sensibilities at the door and enjoy "Braveheart" as the rousing bit of entertainment it is.

  • March 17, 2003, 12:23 p.m. CST


    by Daryl van Horn

    It is not ignorance to speak of Jesus as a possible mythology. Josephus only briefly mentions him and only out of hearsay. And even if there was a man called Jesus who preached and got killed, it in no way proves the truth of christianity or the fact that modern christianity is indeed purely an invention of Paul, who never met Jesus and was considered a bit of a weirdo by Jesus' family, discipels and original cult followers... So the "Jesus" of religion can truly be described as mythological as Robin Hood. There WAS a Robin Hood you know. But that doesn't mean you should believe the stories about merry men and jolly swashbuckling. I do commend Mel's bravery in this project as wel as his apparent integrity in what he perceives as staying loyal to the 'truth to some extent. However I find myself completely unexcited about it since Mel's fundamentalist catholic views will ensure this movie will be completely according to doctrine. Mel will be a 'good little boy' no doubt so no risks or interesting angles will be seen in terms of story or symbolism. And THAT could have interested me. I really don't care if everyone speaks Arameic and eats the right kind of fruit. An interesting creative approach in a different interpretation or what could have happened that this got based on would have been truly daring and brave. But with an old-fashionedly religious film maker, the movie has no chance of that. At least 'Last Temptation' attempted a more radical view. Before, of course, copping out completely in the end.

  • March 17, 2003, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Did a guy named Jesus actually exist? Probably. But are the ev

    by minderbinder


  • March 17, 2003, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Return of Dead Languages

    by Curiously Strong

    Honestly, I think its great that Mel Gibson has the balls to create the film entirely in latin and Aramaic. Considering that the Harry Potter books are also currently being translated into Latin and Ancient Greek, it would seem that these "dead languages" may see a second coming soon enough.

  • March 17, 2003, 12:38 p.m. CST

    As long as we're talking about historical accuracy...

    by Uncle Sam

    Jesus wasn't from the town of Nazareth. The town of Nazareth was established in the third century A.D. (over two hundred years after Jesus died). There was a mistranslation/misinterpretation of the scriptures, he wasn't Jesus of Nazareth, he was Jesus the NAZARENE. Jesus was a Nazarene, a member of a jewish religious sect who had three main principles: 1- A man must have long hair; 2- A man should never drink wine; 3- A man should never touch a dead body. I guess Jesus wasn't a very good Nazarene, since he drank wine at a wedding and he touched Lazarus' remains. Of course, he could have justified it, saying that the wine had been water an instant before, and that Lazarus was brought back to life after he touched him. Also, Mary of Magdalena was probably his wife, and they probably had children together. - I WANT YOU, but not in that way.

  • March 17, 2003, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Ernie McCracken

    by Throbbin Hood

    Should check his e-mail

  • March 17, 2003, 12:57 p.m. CST

    I, for one, find this a little unsettling

    by Trav McGee

    ...That is, trying to follow a talkback on Jesus Christ with "the sexiest tomboy beanpole on the planet" constantly drawing my eye to the left. (Hoo wee, but that there's a cute navel.) And I'm not particularly a religious man. (Not even particularly a pierced-navel man.) Just sayin. Funny, have no such issues while reading "Catwoman" talkbacks... As for "Passion," does sound fascinating, and whether I'll agree with it or not--and I'm certainly no archeologist or religious history scholar--I've got to applaud the zero compromise on Mel's part. I'm wondering though, with the emphasis on verisimilitude, is there to be a score? Anyone tipped for that? And will it be a documentary you-are-there feel, or more dramatic (in the classic sense)?

  • March 17, 2003, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Historical Accuracy can be really damn BORING too!

    by Silver Shamrock

    Mel is the man, but this is gonna be the most expensive home movie in history.

  • March 17, 2003, 1:20 p.m. CST

    sigh... ignorance is a bitch

    by bigbill

    current scholarship puts the earliest copies of the gospels at early second century. Jesus is the best documented person in ancient history. Better documented than Julius Caesar.

  • March 17, 2003, 1:21 p.m. CST

    a few points, some alarming...

    by pluribus unum

    First, to whoever said, he could have been 'white', the idea of 'Caucasians' and other racial break downs is a modern one; there is no basis for race in the genetics of Homo Sapien nor is their any codified idea of 'race' in the ancient world. I think some have a problem with an Anglo Saxon or Nordic/Germannic looking christ (because he has been so depicted by western societies) because Jesus, in all liklihood, if he existed (there seems to be good evidence that he did, his divinity is a question of the supernatural and personal belief, I leave it at that) was certainly semetic, a Jew and would have had the characteristics of people of the area. I am MUCH MORE disturbed by the recent New York Times article on the project, Gibson, and his father. Gibson's father is clearly an anti-semite, and Gibson says that he will 'lay the blame' for Jesus death at the feet the Jews (in so many words). There is also an exploration of his religion (and I have no problem with anyone's beliefs in and of themselves) which is a branch of 'catholic traditonalism' from what I understand. What was disturbing was the fundamentalism he seems to espouse. I would think the lessons of the past two years would show us the folly of fundamentalism of any denomination.

  • March 17, 2003, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Christ - You Know It Ain't Easy

    by hipcheck13

    If this makes any money, leave it to Hollywood to churn out other religious leaders as icons movies, such as: "Shake Your Buddha" (starring M. Brando), "Maid in Mohammed" (starring J. Lopez' ass and Don Knotts as Mohammed) and "Allah The Right Moves" (the "Breakdancing Allah" to be played by Corey Feldman).

  • March 17, 2003, 1:27 p.m. CST

    Why don'

    by oceansized

  • March 17, 2003, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Hey DevilCat, why don't you look at my post a little more close

    by oceansized

    I never said Jesus looked African or Caucasian. I said he was a dark skinned man. I think Yassir Arafat and Saddam Hussein are dark skinned men. Certainly darker than Jim Caviezel, who's more along the lines of the traditional white Jesus always depicted.

  • March 17, 2003, 1:38 p.m. CST

    All post-1985 Mel Gibson material is crap

    by SignyD

    Seriously, name one movie that has any cultural significance after his Road Warrior trilogy came to (what should have been) an end. Braveheart? Please - that was Mel's version of Costner's Dancing With Wolves. Dancing With Kilts? Let's move on. The Patriot? A laughable and grandiose spectacle. Signs? A poor, obvious movie directed by even more of an egomaniac than Mel. Hamlet? More like Hambone. We Were Soldiers? Just where did he dig up that accent? Listening to Dale Gribble from King Of The Hill? And now this chauvinistic hypocrite proffers up another self-obsessed gob of pretension. Eat up, boys, the pabulum is fine.

  • March 17, 2003, 1:40 p.m. CST

    "the eating habits of the Jews..."

    by MKiro

    Huh? Kosher. Sounds like a real compelling element if that's one of the main things he can say about the movie. More self-indulgent claptrap from a Hollywood star with a huge self-important ego. Yeah, this is really gonna go down well with the potential conflicts happening in the world right now. Religion is the cause of (or the excuse for) 99% of wars in history. Originally created to instil morals out of fear (burn in hell if you're bad, etc), religion has ironically become the CAUSE of most conflicts and prejudices. Worship the sun - at least we know it exists... and it does sustain life!

  • March 17, 2003, 1:42 p.m. CST


    by holyRoller

    It's suprising to read this talkbalk and see all of the knocking of Christ as Saviour. I don't think people would be crashing so wholeheartedly on a movie related to Hinduism, Islam, or Buddhism. Maybe our society today is just scared at the mere thought that we need a saviour apart from ourselves. Also, for many of you, if you read some non-liberal books on Christianity, you will see that there are more historical supports for Christ than against him. Whether you believe or not, you might want to do some thorough research, considering the subject is an eternal one. *gets off of soapbox*

  • March 17, 2003, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Color Contact or Digital

    by EmilyQFan

    From the few pics I HAVE seen of Jim C carrying the cross all bloody I think he DOES look like what I think most people have as an image of Christ. He also looks darker in skin tone not blindingly white as some people are saying. As for the digital eyes. I would not want to have contacts in for the whole movie since it just covers really the crucifiction and have all that fake blood dripping in my eyes for months. I think he was smart to darken them digitally

  • March 17, 2003, 2:47 p.m. CST

    Paul Verhoeven

    by Some Dude

    I really wish he could get the funding for his Christ movie. He's been researching for years a historical look at the man, not the myth. Verhoeven has some great ideas. Anyone who thinks he would do it for sensationalism is an idiot. Most of Verhoeevn's films feature the presence of Christian imagery. He even says that Robocop is his Americanization of the Christ story.

  • March 17, 2003, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Did you know?...

    by numberface

    That you can go to Hell for discussing the Lord's skin color? It's right there in the bible. I hope you all like the heat!

  • March 17, 2003, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Oceansize is right: we need a vertically-challenged Middle-Easte

    by beamish13

  • March 17, 2003, 3:04 p.m. CST

    the concept of "hell" was invented so people could retain contro

    by beamish13

    Parents still use it to frighten kids into going to bed early and doing homework.

  • March 17, 2003, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Your parents are smarter than you

    by TheTARDIS

    "Do your homework or you're going to hell!" I've seen this as a supposed *reason* for Christianity. A way to control kids? It tickles me to no end how smart people think they are. How put together, and super-hip and trendy, and sooo not their parents they think they are. Truth be told, your parents are twice as smart as you'll ever be until you learn to think for yourself and shake off this kneejerk reaction to anything "establishment". The ignorance of people who can successfully operate a computer to the point their posts get posted is unbelievable!

  • March 17, 2003, 3:34 p.m. CST

    "... better documented than Julius Caesar."

    by SmutGirl

    Oh really? So we have books written personally by Jesus? Writings about him by his contemporaries who personally knew him? Link?

  • March 17, 2003, 4:03 p.m. CST


    by Lobanhaki

    You'd like him. He said it was more important to do good than to be slave to the rules. He didn't discriminate, he didn't judge. He didn't turn away from the sick, or the outcast. It's too bad that fallible humans screw things up in his name, and that others take religion as an excuse to do unholy things to those they disagree with or have a beef with. Christ told people not to take vengeance, not to strike back when struck, to love their enemies, and to practice mercy compassion and charity in their everyday lives. If you think he'll warmly greet any of the people who slaughtered and murdered in his name, you're a fool. It isn't religion that causes most wars, it's the belief that might makes right.

  • March 17, 2003, 4:19 p.m. CST

    Lynxpro and TheTardis

    by GypsyTRobot

    Lynxpro: excuse me - the new geek parlance is Elvish, get with the program! To be one of the really kewl kids, you have to know both Quenya AND Sindarin. + TheTardis, don't you realize the Time Lords were Buddhists? Obviously they had reincarnation down pat. There was one openly Time Lord pretending to be a Tibetan lama (in the episode with the giant radioactive spiders). The Kinda had their (Dharma) wheel and there is an evil Mara in Buddhist mythology. So there you go, TardisBoy, time to switch religions.

  • March 17, 2003, 4:31 p.m. CST



    About the color law... link? It's not I don't believe you, I'm just curious.

  • March 17, 2003, 4:57 p.m. CST

    by kalelofkrypton

    "I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman." - Homer J. Simpson

  • March 17, 2003, 5:15 p.m. CST

    09 minutes as 2 hours would be 'overwhelming'???

    by Swithin

    Sure didn't work for Lawrence of Arabia, now did it? Phht. Length. Ruins any good historical drama. I am very atheist, and yet I adore Jesus the man. I can get why people want him as their god - and from me, that's saying a lot. And the movie, which is meant to be 'fair' to his singular contribution to human history is going to run an hour and a half? Sure, it can be argued that all recent Hollywood (or associated) period pieces over an hour and a half recently have sucked... generally the longer they were the worse they were, too... but honestly, all recent mainstream period movies have sucked. I thought Mel wanted to buck that trend. But hey, he's the guy who made Braveheart, what was I really expecting?

  • March 17, 2003, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Heh. Topic should have read '90' minutes, not '09'...

    by Swithin

    My bad.

  • March 17, 2003, 5:31 p.m. CST

    its good to see winning that best picture oscar didn't go to Mel

    by Tall_Boy

    considering how this flick is only about THE SON OF GOD!!! sigh. you people voted for Hubert Humphery and you killed Jesus!

  • March 17, 2003, 5:49 p.m. CST

    Manox, if St Paul had written the entire New Testament, it would

    by FluffyUnbound

    Paul's epistles actually chronologically were written first. The Q source underlying Luke came next, about sixty years later, long after any possible contemporary witness to the events in question was long dead. The other gospels are more remote than that, especially John - except for the parts that also draw from the Q source. If Paul had written a gospel there might have been a chance that he got his info from a witness - as it stands, we have no contemporary accounts of any kind. MAYBE some of the apocryphal stuff that is repeated in the parables and the Sermon on the Mount is legit - it's the kind of stuff that would have survived well in the oral tradition that predates the gospels. But that's it.

  • March 17, 2003, 6:01 p.m. CST


    by TomVee

    "Then they get up and dont leave a tip for the waitress" This is exactly what happened to my daughter, who is a waitress at a posh hotel restaurant. A Jewish family came in on Christmas Eve and racked up a $400 bill, plus they stayed later than they should have. While she was in the back, they took off without paying the bill. By the way, I saw the EWTN interview with Gibson. It was interesting, but I could see that Gibson has gone off the deep end -- as do all religious obsessionists. Plus he looked very very old, very tired. Maybe it's time he packed it in before he turns into the next Harrison Ford.

  • March 17, 2003, 6:06 p.m. CST

    "09 minutes as 2 hours would be 'overwhelming'???" Well, since

    by minderbinder

  • March 17, 2003, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Brassmonkey...when your right your right

    by liljuniorbrown

    That the only talkback on this board that made sense.I watched that interview Friday night and i just gotta say this,Mel Gibson has nothing to prove to anybody.The intensity he brought to Mad Max,and The Road Warrior should make him a hero to movie geeks everywhere.He could easily pull an Arnold and make Lethal Weapon 5-10,but he's taking a chance and making something that hasn't been tried before.He's doing it with his money and he's doing it because it's true to his heart.If ya don't like it don't go see it.But nobody can call him a has been.Nobody that's a fan of movies as an art form.

  • March 17, 2003, 6:29 p.m. CST

    Pluribus Unum

    by LeoO

    Of COURSE race exists. You don't know what you're talking about. All species, including homo sapiens, can be classified below the species level into subspecies, breeds, types, or "races". Any forensic patholigist can identify your race by your skeleton, or even just a tiny DNA sample, just as he can your sex. Race is physically, biochemically, genetically real. And there are noticeable differences among the races in everything from testosterone levels, rates of fraternal twin conception, to susceptibility to various diseases (sickle cell anemia for example is a side effect of blacks' adapation to malaria). And much more. But you don't need a degree in anthropology, biology, genetics, or anything else to know race exists. You just have to have open eyes and common sense uninfected by crypto-Marxist Political Correctness, so you can see the blindingly obvious. It's interesting, isn't it, that only white people say that race doesn't exist. We're the only people who PC-inspired social convention requres to deny our own existence. Tell whites race doesn't exist and they'll usually nod along nervously for fear of being un-PC, although they'll secretly know you're wrong. Tell blacks or Hispanics race doesn't exist and they'll probably punch you in the nosea, and darn right too, for denying their existence. How 'bout not spouting inane PC pieties here and just sticking to movie criticism? What's next, denying that sex exists?

  • March 17, 2003, 6:42 p.m. CST

    I always loved that Zefferelli film with Olivia Hussey and Rober

    by Monkey_King

    Gotta get hat sucker on DVD. Saw it a few months ago whilst Christmas shopping for the little monkey nephews.

  • March 17, 2003, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Retard Talkback

    by Damer1

    This is the most retarded talkback ever. Half-truths and silly myths present all around and that's just the idiots that hate Christianity.

  • March 17, 2003, 6:59 p.m. CST

    What if you're blind?

    by BibFortuna

    Does race exist to those who can't see the colors of skin?

  • March 17, 2003, 7:01 p.m. CST


    by riskebiz

    Is this movie still being filmed in Latin with the direct intent of NOT having subtitles on the film when it's released? That still seems idiotic. Personally, I don't think anyone has ever done a better job than Zefferilli's "Jesus of Nazereth". Robert Powell was brilliant. It's hard to watch other films of Jesus with the bar set that high. Only in the case of something completely different like the Last Temptation of Christ, does it suffer comparisons. I remember reading an interview with Ernest Borgnine once who said he had a legitimate vision of the real Christ on the cross while he watched Robert Powell up on the cross during filming. He said he actually saw Christ on the cross for a bit. It really got to him.

  • March 17, 2003, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Bib Fortuna

    by LeoO

    Silly question. Does ethnicity exist to those who can't see? Does sex exist? Does age? Of course it exists, genius. And race isn't skin color. There are albinos of every race. Their light skin color doesn't change their racial identity. If Whoopi Goldberg or Margaret Cho or Rigoberta Menchu were albinos, they wouldn't be white.

  • March 17, 2003, 7:15 p.m. CST

    Christ, what have you done?

    by A Winner Is You

    For any of us. Really? Cause the world still sucks major arse, and if you really are up there, sitting on God's right hand (how patently absurd), why the FUCK won't you come back? I mean, your followers, apparently, kept ranting that one day, you would show back up. Of course, it was probably the bullshit thing you told them before your martyr ass got nailed up for fucking with authority. We're all still waiting, king of Liars. It's not that I'm an atheist. Far from it. I just have a hard time buying that God fucked a woman, she gave birth, her son kicked around for about thirty years before hearing the call of God, then he dies and comes back after three days. Nah, more like the lunatics that believed him drug his dead ass out of the tomb, if he didn't just rot away in there like a normal human. Which is all he ever was. Religious rant over... flame away.

  • March 17, 2003, 7:33 p.m. CST

    Bib Fortuna

    by LeoO

    If you believe in an omnipotent God, why do you find it hard to believe that He could have caused a pregnancy in a virgin, incarnated Himself in human form, risen from the dead, or anything else? Also, people who whine about the existence of evil and blame it on God are either unintelligent or mentally lazy and have not thought about the issue. Obviously, unless we are to be mindless automatons, puppets, we must have free will, meaning the ability to choose evil. God gave us freedom. Those who choose evil deserve the blame for their actions, not God. Or would you rather be a puppet? As far as misfortune goes, it can be angering and saddening, but you want to live in a world where pillows appear every time you fall down?

  • March 17, 2003, 7:34 p.m. CST

    Robin Hood, eh?

    by pizzatheface

    I think it's funny that Daryl Van Horn is wise enough to choose which historical accounts of Jesus are accurate and which are not. So maybe Josephus only mentions him once: why can't the gospels be regarded as historical accounts? If they were written at different times by different writers to different audiences, then I would say the consistency of their accounts has FAR more evidential worth than the declaration of independence. Not that I'm angry at anyone for having a different opinion, but I think it's foolish for anyone to try to make ANY case about the reality of Jesus without taking into account the things written in defense of his case. Kinda like going to the Army recruiter trying to find out everything about the Marines. ...And why is Harry getting eaten?

  • March 17, 2003, 7:38 p.m. CST

    That Jesus Story ... (oh my gawd it's a bloody essay!)

    by jbreen

    Well, the problem with the idea of the Jesus myth is that the traditional story really does incorporate many mythic elements from other belief systems, and much of that has to do with the both the history of the testaments themselves and the history of Christianity over the last two millenium. First up, any amount of research on the Web and your local library would probably leave you a little confused as to the history of the New Testament and its historical accuracy, so, as, um, Devil

  • March 17, 2003, 7:51 p.m. CST


    by LeoO

    The fact that Jesus and His story has echoes in other religions isn't necessarily proof that Christianity is false. They can be seen as faint echoes or preludes to the real thing. In fact the parallels between ancient myths and Christianity were a major factor in the conversion of C.S. Lewis, who went on to become one of the most sophisticated and influential defenders of Christianity ever. Any objection you think you can make, he already heard and demolished decades ago.

  • March 17, 2003, 8 p.m. CST

    Why is his color so important?

    by kdashf

    Jesus' skin color is an awfully important thing in these posts. Everyone one wants to embrace him as one of there own but get things straight Jesus would look more like Saddam then anything else. I laugh at the racists trying to put him into their corner. Well heres a hint how about you guy make him malado so eveyone wins. He can have an african penis and caucasian blue eyes and rugid good looks. That way everyone will pay to see the movie.That way the title Passion will fit.

  • March 17, 2003, 8:03 p.m. CST

    You can't make Jesus too realistic, hence Last Temptation's fail

    by Moriarity Report

    Technically, Last Temptation of Christ might have been the best film on this subject but it failed because the characterization of Jesus was off. If nothing else, Jesus exists as a literary and a film character. People can watch and enjoy his story as an epic historical myth the same way they enjoy watching the characters of King Arthur, Hamlet, etc. I really think Christians (and the general public) are interested in hearing about more realistic takes on the myth of Christ, but if you change his character too much than it's no longer him. The whole idea of Jesus is that he was a perfect man. He was enlightened. So therefore to portray him as being tortured, and something less than perfect (or considerably less so) as Scorsese did, you are really diluting the character. It's a simple story. My favorite Jesus film was King of Kings starring Jeffrey Hunter because I feel Hunter really nailed the character in that film. He was amazingly good looking, calm, never angry, impassioned, pretty much everything we expect to see from Jesus from the image of him that has been created over the years. You could really believe this guy came from another planet. He's like Superman in a lot of ways. People don't want to see a realistic Superman. They don't want to see Nicolas Cage playing Superman. They want to see this perfect alien from an advanced civilization. I haven't read the article yet, but from what I've read so far, Gibson seems to have a lot of passion for this story, but then so did Scorsese. I think Gibson can pull it off as long as he doesn't try to make a politically correct version of the story. That's what Disney tries to do with their adaptions of classic fairytales, but in the process they destroy the whole point of those stories. Luckily Gibson has been a big enough star for long enough that I think he will be able to survive all the politically correct Christian hating liberals who will demonize this film.

  • March 17, 2003, 8:08 p.m. CST

    The clock is ticking, now.

    by Noriko Takaya

    Just so you know.

  • March 17, 2003, 8:09 p.m. CST

    And by that I mean,

    by Noriko Takaya

    The war clock. Sorry about that.

  • March 17, 2003, 8:51 p.m. CST

    Moriarty's statement that "no one has seen any footage" isn't re

    by Frietag

    ...since that correspondent, Raymond Arroyo, has seen about half an hour of the rough cut of the film. ( ............... I have to say; religion or no religion, truth or no truth, valid or invalid, apocryphal or not, and whether or not Mel has internalized any of his dad's odd theories (which sound as kooky as anything in CONSPIRACY THEORY); I do respect him for putting his purse on the line for this film. Everyone in Hollywood throws around the word "passion" like it's equivalent to "money": "The most important thing to have is passion, you've got to be passionate about the project." And so on. I think it's hard to argue about Mel's passion for PASSION; he's tithed $25 million of his own personal fortune and years of effort to it, and hasn't made a single concession yet. That's worthy of respect. And I think the film will probably be extremely compelling. But on the other side, I don't have to cite the obvious historical examples to convince anybody that exceptional passion in one's beliefs can lead to really bad things as well as good ones. Gibson should know that films can be very influential; BRAVEHEART, remember, singlehandedly jump-started the long-defunct Scottish independence movement. He knows that. Yet here he is, making a film that gives the "truth" about another historical event ... except this is a much, much bigger target. Everyone knows most good directors tend to have Messianic complexes. Sometimes they even say Messianic things. But Mel says in the above link, "There have been a lot of obstacles thrown in the way of this picture; it's full of discomfort...And I understand it's the other realm warring. So I have taken steps to put on armor... I look at myself as a conduit here--a tool, using what God gave me." Is anyone else a little disturbed by the actor who once played Mad Max explaining his lack of subtitles by saying, "There is power and mystery in these dead languages" and vowing to "make it truly about a man born to the House of David"? Sure, Morgan Freeman talks like that sometimes -- but Martin Riggs? Scorsese's reinvention of Christ took some hubris (or cojones), but Marty has always come off as rather humble and self-effacing, always taking care to explain his most-loved work in terms of what he's borrowed from his favorite filmmakers. I'm getting something else from Gibson's interviews of late. I'm not sure what it is ... but I don't think it's humility. We will see.

  • March 17, 2003, 9:10 p.m. CST


    by jbreen


  • March 17, 2003, 9:57 p.m. CST

    I hope they get Terry Jones to play Jesus' mum

    by Seth_Isurus

    "Thanks for the gold and frankincence! Don't worry too much about the myrrh next time."

  • March 17, 2003, 11:55 p.m. CST

    I am looking forward to this film

    by Hate_Speech

    very much. Mel Gibson rules and has balls of steel for making this film.

  • March 17, 2003, 11:59 p.m. CST

    This Actually WILL Make Money

    by Barron34

    There are so many fundies and Christians in this country who normally DON'T go to movies, that they will go see this movie in droves. The Bible is, after all, the best-selling book in history, and plenty of people have gotten rich off of Jesus's name (holy rollers included). Don't be surpised whent his flick makes big dough. Then watch heathen Hollywood make more Christian focused psic to capitalize off of it. And so it goes.

  • March 18, 2003, 12:01 a.m. CST


    by Barron34

    That's "pics", not "pisc".

  • March 18, 2003, 12:59 a.m. CST

    Thank you for this!

    by viola123

    I very much want to see this film too. It will be fascinating. And I trust in Mel to make it unique, something he believes in. It is clearly close to his heart and I believe that will shine through the film, even with the aramaic and Latin, it will be enthralling. I can't wait to see some footage too. The pics have been beautiful and sad. Thanks for the info and yes, please give us the next scoop when James in on the program -- I love it that they're going to digitally color his eyes. Down to the last detail!

  • March 18, 2003, 1:13 a.m. CST

    What about cruxification accuracy?

    by FD Resurrected

    Nails on the wrists hold steadfastedly to the wooden cross, not the hands that would wear and tear off from the nails due to gravity. It looks like Gibson got it wrong or correct the error by digital manipulation in post-production. I hope Passion isn't one of the most boring Hollywood movies ever made - I barely sit through Wim Wenders and Theo Angelopoulos' films but strangely not Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line.

  • March 18, 2003, 4:18 a.m. CST

    Mel rules. And this movie is certainly near the top of my Most A

    by a goonie

    Up there with a few others like PJ Hogan's "Peter Pan" and Singer's "X2." But everything I've heard so far about "The Passion" has me on the edge of my seat, expecting sheer greatness from Mel and Caviezel and everyone involved. I can't wait.

  • March 18, 2003, 5:02 a.m. CST

    Eating Habits

    by DannyOcean01

    What the fuck does that mean. Why didn't he just use the word Kosher? This makes it sound like the Jews were fucking animals. God I hate that egotistical English hating, now Jew hating, Antipodean prick with an ancestry steeped in criminality. I hope a cross falls on him.

  • March 18, 2003, 5:10 a.m. CST

    90 minutes

    by DannyOcean01

    Oh and another thing Mel. Shows real confidence in your material if you think 2 hours would be too much.

  • March 18, 2003, 5:36 a.m. CST


    by memoryman

    Read the rest of this talkback - seems as if Mel's switched his english-hating to anti-semitism. But I guess you're right, if we all left our PC sensibilities at the door we'd all have a better time. Now where did I put those Riefenstahl films...

  • March 18, 2003, 7:59 a.m. CST


    by Ronnie_Dobbs

    Gibson was quoted as saying, "... distributors think I'm crazy, and maybe I am ... but maybe I'm a genius." BRAVEHEART 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • March 18, 2003, 8:28 a.m. CST


    by AnyaOrmsby

    Touche! I guess I just don't see Gibson's anti-British sentiment. Even if I did, I doubt I'd care. Sounds callous, sure, but it's not like Americans have it in for the British. We actually never think of them. Kind of like Canadians. We save all of our irrational hatred for the French. Freedom fries anyone?

  • March 18, 2003, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Wow! Even the flu got sick?

    by Movie Man

    That IS bad! ; D

  • March 18, 2003, 9:06 a.m. CST

    'The Last Temptation of Christ'

    by skittles

    Did anyone really like this movie? I'm usually a big Scorcese fan but, I'm sorry, this movie was really boring. The sets looked very cheap. Peter Gabriel's musical score was good and I liked Wilem Dafoe as Christ, but taken together the movie was boring.

  • March 18, 2003, 10:14 a.m. CST

    Lot of love in this room!

    by Lobanhaki

    Gibson isn't that much of a fundamentalist. This is the guy who made a film where the protagonist has sex with another man's wife, kills a bunch of people... Oh yeah, that's Braveheart. He made all those Lethal Weapon movies where he curses like a sailor. He's not unwilling to play sinners. A fundamentalist would worry about making a bad example, because they intentionally only see the superficial appearance.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second, I have couple possible explanations for the fact that certain aspects of previous savior figures pop up in the stories about Jesus. The first is that Jesus is the fulfillment of the internal principle of those stories, and thus those principles recur in this life, because he is in all those other events, too. The second explanation is that Jesus's contemporaries, when they wrote and spoke about him, conveyed to the the future writers of the Gospels a certain essential spirit that caused them to resort to these archetypal narratives to convey the meaning they saw within. I would think it is likely both at once: That the events and the relaters of the events figured towards the portrayal of Christ in this manner.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Third, there was no "fucking" God did not pull out His divine penis and go to work. It's only we who need to go through all that runaround. God does not do things like we do. I mean half of the problems modern people have with God is that they anthropomorphize him. They make our heavenly father out to be a beard Zeus-variant in the sky. He is not some super-powered version of us. Some people cite the Genesis verses that say we were created in God's image, but that doesn't necessarily mean we look just like him. A professor of mine told us that when an ambassador was sent out from a King, the ambassador was sent with an image of his king hanging from their neck, to symbolize that they were speaking for the king. That is the Hebrew word used for image in the bible, indicating that we are more Ambassador's of God to the world, than lesser copies of his form. Again and again, we are cautioned in the bible against assuming that God's ways are our ways, and that our thoughts are like his. So when you ask how he could allow disasters, tyrrany, unjust war, or other things, you miss the possibility that his purposes, and his gifts of providence to us, might just work despite, even through, horrible events, and that they aren't indications of a Sadistic God. Also, It might not have been possible to make the world entirely safe for us, and have us still exist within that world. Ironically, having a scientific perspective is good for one's faith in this instance, as one learns all the different necessary events and conditions that had to exist for life as we know it to develop. If he wanted us to arise naturally in the world, it may not have been possible or even desirable for the world to be lacking in the elements of our daily tragedies and disasters. It would also keep us from going anywhere psychologically and spiritually speaking. If you don't need to learn in order to survive, if you don't need to humble yourself to be at peace, what use is a perfect world?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Which brings us to Christ. Fully human, fully divine. To understand Jesus, I think one has to understand how Jesus was like all of us: at birth he was ignorant of his full self, as we all are. He grew up, and though he was a prodigy capable of impressing the elders of the Temple, he went missing from his parents to do so. Jesus didn't know everything, though his divine senses allowed him insights others could not have. He didn't understand his parents weren't going to know where to find him, though he knew Joseph was not his father. One can say that what Jesus had were the best instincts that any man had ever had. He understood the relationship between God and Man so intuitively that he was unable to act against that relationship, though sometimes, like any human, he was given to despair of whether things were going well, or whether things would turn out for the best. This is the man who asked God why he had forsaken him on the cross. He walked the earth as one of us, yet with divine understanding and power, a synthesis of the holy and the earthly. He was not some goody-goody who held people to standards they couldn't meet. Again and again, there is a stress on acknowledging that as long as one lives on earth, one is flawed, and incomplete. The new testament makes it clear that part of the reason for becoming a Christian is simply to work out ways to deal with one's flaws, to refine oneself past what you were before hand, to die to a nature that does nothing to remedy one's weaknesses, and to come to life as an equally flawed, but stronger person. That most people blame Christ for those who put on a show of piety and of religiousness while grabbing for power and money is ironic for these are the very people that Christ named hypocrites. That most people see Christianity as a source of intolerance for flawed human beings is ironic, because the man himself preached to the tax collectors, hookers, and AIDS patients of his time. That some in the church seek to break down the barrier between church and state is ironic, because the man himself told someone when asked about a temple tax: Give to Caesar what's his, give to God what belongs to Him. To see in the imperfection and corruption of man, the imperfection and corruption of God is silly, especially when God described such behavior and warned against it. It's only when people flock to religion for the benefit of social standing and their own ego-driven purposes that it becomes such a mockery. The most faithful followers of Christ act differently.

  • March 18, 2003, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Heroes and Legends

    by Silent_Boba

    Something to think about... there are many MANY historical figures around the world whose reality is clouded by legends. Davy Crockett, Wild Bill Hickok, George Washington, Vlad the Impaler, William Wallace, Rasputin, Catherine the Great... and a hell of a lot more. No one questions that they were real people who definitely existed. Yet each of them has had so many tall tales written about them, along with the accurate records, that no one is yet 100% certain what is true and what is bullshit! And much of the fiction was written while they lived, so the timeframe of the writings has no bearing on their veracity. As far as Jesus' divinity, until he comes back to earth and proves it to one and all, it will remain a matter of faith for every person to accept or reject... that's why they call it FAITH.

  • March 18, 2003, 11:47 a.m. CST


    by memoryman

    Believe me, no-one is that fond of les francais over here right now either, for various reasons. I'm american by nationality as well, and I get that the US has nothing against England. But Mel is Aussie, not american. Braveheart is a brilliant film, just my English wife finds it impossible to watch because of the anti-english sentiment. Which is a pity.

  • March 18, 2003, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Oh Lord protect this rocket house and all those who dwell within

    by Corporateplant

    Oh Lord show me who to smote and they shall be smotten! Gotta love Homer.

  • March 18, 2003, 2:07 p.m. CST

    Mel's passion

    by Eurobuns NO time in any article has Mel been called anti-semitic!!In fact the NY article went to lengths to state that...probably the only element of truth in the whole thing! His dad may hold offensive beliefs, but Mel probably has as much control over his Dad as I have over mine! Let's not hang the son for the offences of the father... Secondly Mel is NOT a fanatical religious nut...he is selling his movie. When he made Ransom all the talk was about hostage negotiation and his parenting fears...we didn't label him neurotic then, we realised he was talking up his movie.Let's give him a break here. He is moved to make this audacious film, but is being smeared by the press because of it. Let's NOT stoop to that here...we are movie fans NOT wanna be journalists trying to make a buck out of someone famous' senile father... I think Mel has balls to make this movie...and can't wait to see it.

  • March 18, 2003, 3:25 p.m. CST

    Christianity is stupid--give up

    by Lord Shatner

    In the immortal words of Negativland

  • March 18, 2003, 3:36 p.m. CST

    re: Jesus the Nazarene

    by Lord Shatner

    I learned that from Damien: Omen II. And I still think Sam Neill is evil

  • March 18, 2003, 3:38 p.m. CST

    This should be in Esperanto like that Incubus movie

    by Lord Shatner

    I realize I have a slight bias on the subject...

  • March 18, 2003, 4:02 p.m. CST


    by kangaroo_k

    Paul didn't write the New Testament, and Jesus' brothers were not against him. I suggest you know what you're talking about before you randomly post the garbage your grade-school teacher said. Now as far as Mel's movie go's, rock on! Others have said it, and I'll back them up in saying that it takes guts to tackle that! I can't wait to see it. Now what's up with Lethal Weapon 5?

  • March 18, 2003, 9:03 p.m. CST

    liberalism is PC; Jesus did exist

    by CountryBoy

    On the PC topic: liberals are far more PC than conservatives -- indeed almost exclusively so. On college campuses around the United States, it is liberals who steal copies of conservative student papers, who try to shout down conservative speakers, who refuse advertising to conservative student organizations; in the news media, which except for a handful are overwhelmingly liberal, conservatives are always misrepresented, their words taken out of context, evidence in their favor not shown. Conservatives, on the other hand, thrive on reporting EXACTLY what liberals say, because it is so patently absurd it always makes our case for us. Anyone who doubts this should listen to Rush Limbaugh, whose radio program is replete with recordings of liberals and recitations of their writings. The PC phenomenon is indeed all about censorship -- I guess that's why liberals cling to it: they fear conservatives having a voice. (I should specify that I refer here to liberal fundamentalists, who hate conservatives with single-minded hate. There are more reasonable liberals, whom I don't mean to paint with so broad a brush.)-----------------------------------As for the existence of Christ, we could look at it in the opposite direction: rather than determine his existence by disproving its dependence on pre-exising material, or proving He was mentioned by this historian or that, look at what has happened as a RESULT of his teaching and example: the replacement or ruthless pagan regimes with ideas of liberty and human worth, the abolition of slavery, monumental advances in art and philosophy and education, and the creation of Western Civilization. (When Rome fell, it was Christians who kept the cultural flame throughout the Middle Ages. Is it likely that civilizaion survived owing to its adherence to the teachings of a man who didn't exist? If His story is just a cobbling-together of other stories, why didn't the religions that gave us THOSE stories last to the present day? It's just a thought. Then there's the supernatural question. The vast catalogue of historically documented miracles is downright spooky. For evidence, check out stories from Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe, the lives of saints both ancient and modern, and the experiece of people you know. My dad was diagnosed with Hodgkins Disease, a then-fatal type of cancer, in 1967. His fellow-Catholics prayed for him and it went away. The evidence for the existence of Jesus, and for the truth of his claims, is more to be found in what it has caused than in what preceded it or who wrote about it at the time.

  • March 19, 2003, 12:11 a.m. CST

    CountryBoy et al

    by jbreen

    Weird arguments. First of all suggesting that Christianity has just been a wonderful blessing for humankind

  • March 19, 2003, 5:18 a.m. CST


    by memoryman

    How do you know Paul didn't write the new testament? Were you there? The only source you have is the testament itself, written by the church leaders after Jesus died - not by Jesus himself. For the record, I'm not religious and I'm not a christian, but I am pretty sure Jesus existed. I'm also pretty sure he was a lot more hardline than depicted in the new testament. After all, he lived with the essenes, and they took things quite seriously. What kind of grade school did you go to anyway where they told you this kind of thing? Don't give me a knee-jerk negative reaction based on your instincts, check your sources first and be sure before you say something. Also I must say I'm looking forward to the film too, I just intend to watch it with my eyes open and form my own opinion. Since I don't really believe any of the story anyway, I might as well enjoy it as an interesting fiction.

  • March 19, 2003, 8:58 a.m. CST

    How many wafers do you have to eat before you've had a whole Jes

    by Henry's Cat

  • March 19, 2003, 9:05 a.m. CST

    "ll the politically correct Christian hating liberals who will d

    by minderbinder

    Remember Last Temptation? It was the churchy folk who bashed it...what's this bullshit talk of "liberals"? And don't listen to CountryBoy - "liberals" are the party of censorship? Come on, it's the other way around. "No self respecting left.winger would ever act as CountryBoy says they do." For the most part, they don't.

  • March 19, 2003, 3:01 p.m. CST

    gibson is such an idiot

    by ugly_casanova

    Mel Gibson missed the point of the last temptation of christ. That movie isnt supposed to be a fair or accurate testament to the life of Jesus. That movie isnt even about Jesus its about the curse of artistic calling. Nikos Kazantzakis' wrote a book about being an artist, about the struggle to do something which will ultimately be detrimental to your being because you feel you have too; because it encompasses every part of you. In the book/movie Jesus cant understand why when he preaches it comes out different from what he originally intended. This is the struggle that Nikos Kazantzakis went through everytime he attempted to create art. Screw Gibson, the last thing we need is another life of christ movie - read the godamned bible for "christ's" sake. And take a pointer from Nikos Kazantzakis, create something.

  • March 19, 2003, 3:24 p.m. CST

    For interesting reading on this subject, check out the book Holy

    by minderbinder

    Total conspiracy theories, but it's a damn fun read.

  • March 19, 2003, 9:46 p.m. CST

    CountryBoy responds!

    by CountryBoy

    It's late in this talkback but I want to respond to a few things. First, my assessment of liberal activity in this country is easily checked. Limbaugh, National Review, The Weekly Standard, The American Enterprise etc. all provide abundantly documented examples of it. -------------------------- As for Jesus and Christianity, I didn't mean to imply that Christianity was an unalloyed paradise; nothing on earth is; all I meant was that its tenets eventually produced huge advances in civilization. That is true. I am HUGELY skeptical of the figures cited by -- I cannot believe Columbus, armed with like swords and blunderbusses, slaughtered 8 million natives when Hitler, using the most horrifically efficient killing methods ever devised, only managed 6 million. Further, "tens of millions" in North America sounds ludicrous. I have nothing to base my doubts on but an inability to believe such wild numbers; but I must say it's easy for a website (or anyone) to throw out unverifiable claims to make their enemies sound like monsters. ------------------------------ When I asked why the sources of other ancient myths no longer exist, I meant civilizations like ancient Egypt, Babylon, etc -- I actually failed to notice that Buddhism and Hinduism were referenced, if they were. My error! (Though if I had my choice, based purely on individual rights, level of advancement and quality of life, I would vastly prefer to live in the Chritian-based West than the Pagan East.) --------------------------------- I thought I might take grief on the miracles. Still, I marvel at the countless modern, recorded examples of unexplained phenomena occurring directly following recourse to God. Could they have just happened? Sure, some of them. But all of them? If spontaneous unexplained phenomena were as common as prayed-for ones, miracles would have no impact on ANYONE; we'd all say "oh, another person cured for no reason. yawn." I brought up my Dad not as irrefutable proof, but to show how omnipresent these occurrences are. Answered parayers are everywhere, that's all I meant. I hope that clarifies. Meanwhile, I think the war is starting; let's all pause and pray to Whomever or Whatever we worship for Peace. No doubt we can all agree on that.

  • March 19, 2003, 11:57 p.m. CST


    by jbreen

    You won't find any argument from me on that last point. Time to hope and, indeed, pray: that this war does not go out of control and that the world keeps a level head; that grief and loss are not visited on too many people of any country involved (I

  • May 21, 2003, 11:33 p.m. CST

    correction neo jerkwads

    by Alonzo Hawk

    Palestine was not the name of the region in j.c's time. It was Judea. Second, I as a Jew am tired of being blamed for killing your christian man/god/myth. Y'shua is not the christos, and if he does ever return, I'll hang his ass on another tree, this one in my back yard.

  • May 21, 2003, 11:52 p.m. CST


    by Alonzo Hawk

    The Messiah is a Jewish concept and the Messiah to the Jews is one who will redeem them in the eyes of the world, not save manking from their sins. Learn and understand the messiah concept before you hijack it from the people who after 2000 years have resisted your false doctrines. Also, be advised that the L-rd your G-d is ONE, not 3 in 1, but one as 1 could ever be. G-d cannot be divided into a triune agreement. Christians, get it through yopur heads, you are the true stiffnecked blind beings, not us Jews. We understand our scriptures. INstead of Hating us, Learn from us. Shalom Out

  • July 1, 2003, 4:27 p.m. CST

    Xians are the Trekkies of religion.

    by nightwatchman