Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

A Catholic & An Athiest review THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST at BNAT 5

Hey folks, Harry here... One of the reasons that I was able to talk Mel Gibson into giving me THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST to screen at Butt-Numb-A-Thon, a film orgy of cosmic proportions, was because of the audience and the way I choose them. Specifically each year I get around 3000 applicants for Butt-Numb-A-Thon. This year I had everyone write a little essay on why they wanted to come, their favorite films, what they do and who they are. THEN - out of those 3000, I pick the 230 people that are the most in love with cinema, that most need the experience of what it is I'm putting together. That need to sit next to who I placed them next to. That are the people that never get chosen for anything, anywhere... or that have amazing luck all the time. The point is to pick, the perfect film going audience, that comes to this tiny theater to see their hopes and dreams. They don't know anything specific. I often say, "Money doesn't get you into Butt-Numb-A-Thon, faith does." That isn't a religious thing, it's about having faith enough in the programming to do what it takes to get in. Mel loved the idea that only the owner of the Alamo Drafthouse and I would know that he and the film would be coming. That the audience would have NO CLUE that they were seeing this. He loved the challenge of his film having to be the last film on an 24 hour period of great cinema. And he wasn't afraid to follow RETURN OF THE KING. Below you'll find two people that absolutely loved the film, but came to the movie from radically different backgrounds. 1st is Saffy. Saffy met her husband in the AICN Chat Room and now lives in Houston with two daughters and was raised Catholic, but could best be described as a lapsed Catholic in some ways. Here ya go...

I don’t normally write reviews. Personally, I don’t usually believe I can because I become so emotional and I lack a lot of technical knowledge about film. Sure, I can go on a diatribe about the importance of Bene-tint to the way they do make-up in period pieces, or how Lucidity foundation paired with cool colored lighting casts an ethereal glow on the skin…but who the hell wants to hear about that? Well OK. Besides me and the cast of Queer Eye.

There are first times for everything, and paired with the first time I am writing a review was the first time I truly got to see what my emotional response to a movie was actually worth. I am going to review The Passion.

The visual look to this film was one part silent movie, one part mystic awakening and one part nightmare. It places you where you need to be, immediately uncomfortable yet familiar enough to go on. Visually this movie stimulates emotionally like nothing out there right now. It creeps…it doesn’t flash in your eyes, it engulfs. The camera doesn’t just film Caviezel, its star. It embraces and caresses him. Even in his darkest hour he expresses such a sense of knowing. Not the typical righteous stoicism we see in the usual film portrayals of Jesus, but a deep sense of spiritual knowing. So that even if you don’t believe in “the Jesus Story,” you can believe that Jesus was someone who possessed an inner quality of peace and forgiveness.

The story takes the Passion (something that I am very familiar with, growing up catholic) and makes it something I could never imagine: it makes it real. We see Jesus’ humanity. That he liked to joke, that he loved his mother, and that he truly suffered. Those turned off by the sometimes pompous, judgmental, “fire and brimstone” vision of Jesus will be able to remove the man from the religion that has built up around his followers. We also see in this movie the pain of his mother, a woman who doesn’t see the supposed blasphemer or messiah, but sees her only son suffer and die. The movie gives a heart to the most unlikely characters, the Romans. We see so much in this move, the political motives for the crucifixion, the dire position people were put in and how this story HAD to enfold like it did. We also see a more female vision of Christianity. The women were the brave followers of Jesus in this film, and were not relegated to a few weeping biddies on the sidelines. They were the ones begging for Jesus, stepping in front of Roman soldiers to give him comfort, the ones weeping at the foot of the cross. Mary, the mother taken off a two dimensional iconic painting and given soul and strength; something movies AND religion have failed to do.

Taking on a movie about Jesus that isn’t pontificating and damning you for all eternity for not believing must’ve been a task unlike any other. No matter what Gibson does with this it is going to offend someone. It has even started to offend those who have never seen it. But guess what? He still did it and he did it majestically. This isn’t an “Onward Christian Soldiers” film. This was a film about a man who spread a message that was misunderstood, and about the people who loved him. The anti-semitism buzz about the film, well I have to address it because there are things that I can see might offend if you don’t step back and realize that almost everyone in the movie is Jewish, from the Pharisees who condemn, to the Pharisees who defend, the apostles who fought, and the man who bravely picked up the cross for Jesus and held him in his pain.

I don’t know how critical I can actually be about this movie because…I wept. It hit me like an emotional anvil and opened up and healed many battle scars I have had with my spiritual convictions. I remembered through this movie that it was all about love and it isn’t the message that turned me off so many years ago but the way the message was presented. The message has been resurrected, the movie made it move and breathe, it made it real yet divine. This is art in its highest form, and even though Mr Gibson claims it’s not finished, it was, in my mind, perfection.

P.S.- Mel Gibson is ICE COLD. I had him all pegged wrong. He is an artist and a DAMN COOL GUY. Keith Richards…oysters…England…PRICELESS!

Ok... so now we move on to Abstruse, here's a sometimes chatter in the AICN Chat that in his initial letter to me to get into BNAT - he bemoaned the fact that he lives in a town where the only theater is owned by a right-wing Christian couple that won't let films like KILL BILL VOL 1 play. That he's never seen a film with a truly great audience and how he wanted to see films that he would never otherwise see. Now I learn he's an atheist to boot... here ya go...

THE PASSION OF CHRIST. Okay, before I say anything else about this film, I want to say something. I am an atheist. I do not believe in god, Jesus, or the bible. I am not a Christian, I am not a Jew, I have no religion. I am also a card-carrying member of the ACLU and a supporter of the ARA (Anti-Racist Action, a youth-based anti-racism organization formed in a retaliation to the neo-nazi movement). I have no ill feelings toward any religion, belief, or race. My best friend is Catholic, my girlfriend is Baptist, my soon-to-be roommate is a Deist, one of my close friends is a Wiccan, and two of my ex-girlfriends are Jewish. When you read this review, remember all this.  

The first thing I want to say about PASSION is that this is not a religious film. It’s a film. It’s an amazing, brilliant, incredible film. This is the film that everyone will be talking about in 2004. Unfortunately due to the press, they’re going to be talking about the wrong things.   

So far, everyone has asked me if I liked this film. I did not like this film, but I did not dislike this film. I did not love this film, and I did not hate it. This film is beyond those type of descriptions. I cannot say I liked this film. But I can say this is probably one of the most important films – if not THE most important film – of this century so far. If anyone wants to make another grand film, this is going to be the yardstick it’s measured against.  

This film is beautiful and ugly, epic and small. And this film is BRUTAL. Christians have turned the phrase “Jesus suffered for your sins” into a cliché. It’s lost all meaning by now. This film does an amazing job of making you KNOW what that phrase means. The MPAA is going to come down on this film like a fucking hammer, but Gibson should show it unrated if they tell him to cut a single frame.  

I can’t say this enough about this film. IT IS BRUTAL. There is no way make this clear without actually showing the film. This just cannot be described in words. You can’t call it violent, you can’t call it bloody. It is BRUTAL. That’s the only word. And it NEEDS to be brutal. It needs to make you squirm in your seat for an hour. It needs to make you want to scream at the screen for it to end. It HAS to do these things. If it doesn’t then you can’t understand the point of this film. This film has to transcend the human tolerance for violence and brutality to make its point. And it does. And it works perfectly.  

Now, the version we saw of the film wasn’t complete. The score was temporary, some effects weren’t there, and it was a rough cut. Therefore, I’m hesitant to even mention the problems I have with this film as they are all things which will most likely be fixed before it makes it into theaters. The main problem I had at first was the score. The music in the first fifteen to twenty minutes of this film is distracting. Again, since this was probably a temporary sound mix, this problem may not exist in the final form as the music may be much more subdued. The music, however, is very appropriate to the time period of the film, and after those first scenes of the film, the music is great. The only other problem I have is that I feel that the film could be much tighter. Again, though, this was a rough cut, so I can’t say it’s a real problem because a rough cut isn’t supposed to be exceptionally tight as an edit.  

My favorite character in this film is Pontius Pilate. You truly understand the position he was in. This was a man who was in charge of this situation, but didn’t want to be. He had a faction that was in power who called for man’s death, and a growing faction who that man led. If he sides with one, then the other will become violent. All he wanted to do was maintain the peace. So he tried to compromise many times. He tried to bribe the faction in power. He tried whatever he could. Finally, he was pushed to where it was either choose one side or the other, so he simply washed his hands of the whole incident. “It is not me who kills this man, but you.” He wanted that made clear. He wanted nothing to do with it, but they forced him into the situation. And it was beautiful.  

This brings me to “the controversy”. “Is this film anti-Semitic?” I have one response to this statement. “Are you on crack?” I feel this film is less anti-Semitic than the bible is. Gibson showed the Jews not as a religion or a people, but as a political entity. These weren’t priests of their religion, these were politicians trying to hold onto their power. The only reason someone could call this film anti-Semitic is simply to stir up shit for no reason other than to stir up shit.  

This film is amazing. It’s powerful. This film MUST been seen. It doesn’t matter what your religion is, this film is amazing. I just can’t express how important this film will become to cinema history. It doesn’t matter if you follow Jesus or Mohammad, Buddha or Moses, or no prophets at all like myself. This film has to be seen.  

The Abstruse One, Jason Byrons

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 8, 2003, 6:29 p.m. CST

    Hello

    by jjmnolte

    No life happy to be first?

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 6:32 p.m. CST

    The Jews killed Jesus...

    by MxM

    Whats new, the killing continues even today...

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 6:32 p.m. CST

    Interesting.

    by Tesarta

    I was especially interested in the atheist review, seeing as how I'm an atheist, too. If the reviewer's representation of Pilate is accurate, then I'll probably be a little annoyed with the film, but not much. After all, it's based on the gospels, not on history. Historically, Pontius Pilate was a rat bastard, cruel and despicable, holding his "backwater" protectorate in such contempt, along with the people in it, that he routinely made a point of pissing them off, just so he could have an excuse to arrest or kill them. He was finally recalled to Rome because, had he stayed, Palestine would have revolted decades before it actually did.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 6:32 p.m. CST

    Those of little faith...

    by jjmnolte

    The reviews for this film have been amazing. I just saw the trailer yesterday and was awed. I respect the fact that people who do not believe are giving unbiased reviews. I'm a republican.,,if I let my beliefs interfere with my enjoyment of a film I'd hate a lot of movies. You have to put those bias's aside.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 6:36 p.m. CST

    first?

    by Aragorn II

    is it possible?

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 6:40 p.m. CST

    Congratulations, Mel Gibson, you have me lining up for this film

    by FD Resurrected

    You win more Oscars on your hands next year. Now let's go make Mad Max 4 for George Miller.

  • I am stunned by the grossly anti-Semitic film reviews that were posted this week here on AICN. I had no idea that so many fellow genre fans were so ignorant of history, and so full of venom towards Jewish people. For instance, a reviewer writes "My favorite character in this film is Pontius Pilate. You truly understand the position he was in. This was a man who was in charge of this situation, but didn

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 6:44 p.m. CST

    No. I'm first.

    by jjmnolte

    I think if everyone looks at the actual "TIMES" of the posts you'll see that I am first. For the record. It scares me that I care.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 6:55 p.m. CST

    The question is, will this make money?

    by Stormin

    It could seriously go either way. If today's postings were any indication, this could garner rave reviews, awards, and a lot of positive hype. But will that still be enough to bring people? Cinephiles, Christians, and people just damn curious about all the hoo-ha surrounding the film will come, but will Joe Sixpack audiences? They might, to see the Greatest Story Ever Told In Celluloid Form if it gets good hype, but even with that people might not want to see a movie they think will be an overblown church sermon that would make them feel like Jesus freaks while standing in line.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 6:55 p.m. CST

    RK100 - I'm with you

    by Tesarta

    Sort of. Modern renderings of the source material (New Testament) are going to look anti-Semitic no matter what you do, because the context is entirely different now, as Christians are no longer primarily Jewish (as they were when most of the gospels were being written). Doing a historically accurate portrayal, based on the best scholarship currently available, would go a long way to fixing this problem. But that's not what Gibson wanted to do; he wanted to tell the story based on the New Testament sources. So *even if* he wasn't being intentionally anti-Semitic, and *even if* he himself is not anti-Semitic at all (and I wouldn't necessarily support either claim), his presentation must end up looking anti-Semitic anyway. This is the Catch-22 of the New Testament: even if you're the most enlightened Christian on the planet, the basis of your faith nevertheless looks to modern readers like the nastiest anti-Jewish polemic imaginable. Readers who don't realize that most of the New Testament authors were Jewish (I'm not talking about Jesus and the apostles, but the authors of the texts themselves) will invariably have a hard time comprehending that earliest Christianity wasn't anti-Jewish, but anti-establishment.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Better than "Jesus of Nazereth"?

    by riskebiz

    I think Franco Zefferelli's "Jesus of Nazereth" is the yard-stick to measure this "Passion of the Christ" movie. Could someone who has seen both give a comparision other than to say this one is BRUTAL. Zefferelli's didn't gloss over it. It looked pretty harsh to me. Olivia Hussey was a great Mary and seemed appropriately aghast and beside herself with grief that her son was being crucified right in front of her. Anyway ... I'm sure this is a beautiful film ... but how does it measure against Robert Powell and the rest of the cast of Jesus of Nazereth? I remember that Rod Steiger was wonderful as Pontius Pilate in that film. Hmmm.... I'd like it if this one were even better, because I don't know if you can get better than Zefferelli's film.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 6:56 p.m. CST

    And I know money isn't the point

    by Stormin

    But I'd rather see this bring in big bucks than be embarrased with Entertainment Tonight calling it the next Gigli or Waterworld.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 6:57 p.m. CST

    A 19th century mystical anti-Semitic nun...

    by Vlad the Rumpole

    ... was, at the time, the sexiest tomboy beanpole on the planet.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 6:59 p.m. CST

    Anti-semitism?

    by CaptBlood

    Is the film anti-semetic? Yes, but much less so than it's source material. This is an adaptation folks, not the gospel according to Mel. It's one of the best ever, I might add. I beleive in God, but loathe anything overtly religious, and follow no religion, so I really appreciated this film. The problem here is that most people ARE religious, and as such, their view will cloud their viewing of this film.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 6:59 p.m. CST

    MxM should be banned

    by I_Got_Mad_Gritz

    MxM wrote "The Jews killed Jesus. What's new, the killing continues today". It's because of ignorant bastards like him this film is going to run into trouble. People who dislike Jews are going to use this film as a springboard for they're hatred. I thought the root of religon was supposed to be love and faith? Gibson might have opened Pandoras Box.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:01 p.m. CST

    historical Pontius Pilate

    by riskebiz

    ... Actually, there is almost no mention of Pontius Pilate outside of the Bible. If he wasn't mentioned in there, you'd be hard pressed to find him mentioned in more than a one or two historical records to know he existed at all. He is an enigma. To say he was a ruler one way or another (outside of what the Bible says of him) is simply hearsay or one massive game of telephone. I read a non-fiction book about him a couple years ago and it was all guesses because of the lack of historical info about the guy. Truth.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:02 p.m. CST

    by raw_bean

    a reviewer writes "My favorite character in this film is Pontius Pilate. You truly understand the position he was in. This was a man who was in charge of this situation, but didn

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:05 p.m. CST

    RK100 I can't believe I am going to do this but...

    by Sheik Yerbouti

    I have to ask, where do you get your sources man, you just quoted straight from the ADL handbook. And no offense to that but there are issues with only taking one point of view, and the ADL have only one point of view: this film is anti-semetic and anyone who dissagrees is wrong. I find this disturbing because they are essentially saying art can be seen only one way. Also as to your supposed evidence regarding "what really happened" where is it, I know you don't have time to go through the entire history of this but from the historical studies I have done there is very little evidence outside the Bible either way. So it would be tough to accurately argue with the Bible, but one is hard pressed to support the Bible's claims with outside evidence as well. My point is, how can you be so sure? And your answers need to come from more than just a handful of sources if you are going to make the claims you do. You essentially just told people their reaction and their emotion after having experienced art is wrong, that is a very bold claim.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:06 p.m. CST

    oops, buggered that post up! Anyway, RK101

    by raw_bean

    'a reviewer writes "My favorite character in this film is Pontius Pilate. You truly understand the position he was in. This was a man who was in charge of this situation, but didn

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:08 p.m. CST

    bloody romans

    by Danger Mouse

    Mel didn't even bother to look at a kids book on what roman soldiers at the time looked like. Their just crappy in this film. How can he claim this is accuate (dead languages and all) when he can't even get basic historical details right...

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:09 p.m. CST

    bloody romans

    by Danger Mouse

    Mel didn't even bother to look at a kids book on what roman soldiers at the time looked like. Their just crappy in this film. How can he claim this is accuate (dead languages and all) when he can't even get basic historical details right...

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:10 p.m. CST

    Pilate

    by FloydGandoli

    As a Christian, I never saw the Bible as sanitizing Pilate in any way. He was spineless. He had the opportunity to do what was right and turn Jesus loose; after all, Jesus hadn't broken any laws. Pilate was too much of a wimp to stand up to the mob.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:10 p.m. CST

    The wall of propoganda is

    by MxM

    finally breaking. Mel you are legend mate, Keep up the good work, and show the world the true evil that lurks around us.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:12 p.m. CST

    A question about the importance jesus' suffering and crucifixion

    by HansDelbruck

    I know this isn't the place for theological discussion but I'm curious to see the responses to this question. And feel free to correct me if my biblical references are incorrect, but... jesus told his followers BEFORE he was crucified that he would rise again in three days, right? If he KNEW (or maybe THOUGHT he knew) that he was the son of God and would not only rise again after his suffering but be taken to heaven, then why would his suffering and crucifixion (no matter how terrible) be any kind of great sacrifice? After all if you KNEW that you would be completely healed and resurrected afterward, wouldn't YOU sacrifice the same thing for even an INDIVIDUAL that you love let alone the entire world? I know I'm going to be severely flamed for even bringing this up but it seems like a fair question to me...

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:15 p.m. CST

    The Brutality

    by FloydGandoli

    I must also point out that as a Christian I think it's really imorant for this film to truthfully and unflinchingly portray the violence perpetrated on Jesus.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:22 p.m. CST

    Hey Han's great question

    by Sheik Yerbouti

    That is actually a very probing real theological question, and you should not be flamed for it. Many Christians believe that the true sacrifice wasn't merely the physical pain and torture (though that was horrible in an of itself, where the root word for excruciating comes from, based off of vernacular terms from the cross) but the real sacrifice was that at a point on the cross when he must take on the "sin" of the world and is literally seperated from the father. This poses another question, if Christ and God are one, how can he be seperated from himself, that's another mind bender. But the argument goes that at the point and time that Christ gives himself up and cries out to God, the pain and torture is beyond physical, it is also spiritual and psychological as he is removed from the father to take the place of the fallen world. I fear I have gone on too long, but that is the short answer, and I am sure there will be other takes on your question, this is merely one point of view.

  • I already know how it ends.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:24 p.m. CST

    This BNAT was Blessed.

    by stuntrocker

    I'm really rather tired having only three hours sleep since bnat(n 3 before) but I feel obligated to say something about this "beyond mere movie." My religious background- I was raised a reluctant catholic by a divorced catholic mom who remarried an agnostic jew because my father turned buddhist when I was 4. I'm a defrocker. 5 years ago today my band defrockers played it's first show. When I was 7 my bio father gave me LOTR and the Hobbit. At the time I would've rather had some toys. But I got into it. This, my 3rd, BNAT was my favourite so far. I'm really gonna say something about this movie but I'm going to take a nap first. I'll sleep well knowing I've seen two of the best movies I've ever seen, that you will definitely see them too. And you already know how they end.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:27 p.m. CST

    post times

    by Danger Mouse

    Why are these posts comming in out of order???

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:34 p.m. CST

    They must have used "important film" a lot in the Q&A

    by Gheorghe Zamfir

    As it seems every reviewer feels the need to parrot the phrase about this being "the most important film" of whatever and whenever. Though the reviews give me encouragement that this looks to be a pretty fine film, no one has really said anything on why its "important" exactly.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Perhaps the reviewer is anti-Semitic, or perhaps he just doesn't

    by FluffyUnbound

    It is entirely possible to read the account of the Gospels exactly as they are written, whitewashing of Pilate and all, and try absolutely no anti-Semitic conclusions at all. A text about a power struggle between sects of Jews only assumes an anti-Semitic cast if one starts out from the premise of trying to find something to blame on the Jewish people as a whole. If that is not already the posture you bring to bear, the Gospels are a narrative about the exchange of one covenant for another. Medieval anti-semites found group deicide in the gospels because that was what they wanted to see. If you are going to say that it is no longer permissible to view the Pilate of the gospels the way the gospel authors portray him, than I want the Old Testament rewritten to change the portrayals of the Egyptians, the Philistines, and the Sodomites, too.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:45 p.m. CST

    what's really bothering me is

    by Anomaly

    is that there aren't enough reviews of this movie on AICN.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Still waiting for the Buddist and Muslim reviews to come in...

    by Bruce LeeRoy

    otherwise i refuse to watch this movie.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 7:55 p.m. CST

    ADL and antisemitism

    by flipster

    yeah I think they complain a bit too much about mothing and try to play victim a little too much. My bio-dad was Jewish (not mother) his family died in the camps so spare me the diatribes. And on that lety me get this off my chest. I know in the states the reform jews are cool with you being jewish if only your dad was, but up here I am not. I think there is a lot that the Jewish people have to answer, especially in my case. Does this jew/non-jew nonsense allow jewish men to have babies w/non-jewish women and then abandon them because they won't be "real" jews in the eye os the phar-oops rabbis? BTW in my case it's worse and not worse: not worse - he married a non-jewish woman in the end and had kids w/her. Worse: He was a pediatrician - yeah a doctor for kids and he abandoned his first born son to poverty and worse. The jews call people like me "righteous gentiles". Assholes, you'd think in a world that hates them they would embrace their own blood, but no their stupid. Fuck 'em.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 8:09 p.m. CST

    If Jesus Returned Today...

    by Krinkle

    He would be absolutely horrified at what the fictions put forth in the bible have promoted in his name. Here we have a revolutionary philosopher, a gentle man, someone promoting understanding and peace in a very harsh nearly-prehistoric environment. Sad thing is, his followers were so outraged by his murder that they decided to invent a cornball ghost story that would enable his word to last through the ages. Well, it worked and it didn't. Bottom line: You can close your eyes and feel how nature works. Nature is indifferent in some cases, but in humans (for whatever reason) harmony and kindness seem to work pretty well. I've never gotten in a fight, never been robbed or beaten or mugged or betrayed or cheated on. I've tried to be a nice guy and turn the other cheek, and I've made a point of being as kind as I can to the people I meet. I imagine the real historic Jesus would approve. But he might be a little puzzled at this book which preaches that we were all created by a very vengeful (and obviously patterned after male humans, and not the other way around) god who didn't care what we did as long as we admitted we owed him our lives. That doesn't FEEL right to me, and you know what? Even if it IS true, I reject it. I expect more of a God than I do of myself, if there is a God (a possiblity I do NOT rule out). A human can be venal, jealous, vengeful, and vain. A MALE human ,especially. But a deity should at least be as loving as the average human mother... But this deity we bow to, if he exists, well, he needs to swallow a Zoloft the size of Jupiter.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 8:15 p.m. CST

    not to offend...

    by Yossarian

    But why did god feel he had to jump through all these hoops to redeem mankind. I mean, he's like, god, the only rules that apply are the ones he makes up right? So why such a convoluted manner of redemption? I have been around christianity for all my life and I have yet to understand these five words: HE DIED FOR OUR SINS. Am I alone in this confusion and failure of understanding?

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 8:23 p.m. CST

    Guns don't kill Jesus

    by chrth

    Bullets do. Thought the first: Effects? I understand, but at the same time, are we filming on a bluescreen? Thought the second: I have a vague feeling that I'm going to respond to this film that same way I did to Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List: the initial viewing is going to be so overwhelming, I'm not going to want to watch it again. Thought the third: It is going to be so freakin' hard to not mentally sing along to this movie. "Jesus I am with you, touch me touch me Jesus!" 9 days to ROTK

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Brutal?

    by wideawakewesley

    So when they say brutal, are we talking about the same degree of brutality seen in Irreversible in both the rape scene and the gay club scene? To date those two scenes are the only things that have made me squirm in my seat.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 8:27 p.m. CST

    MxM

    by Krinkle

    Listen, man, the minute you feel hatred on Jesus's behalf, you've already lost anything the man might have taught you by way of the Bible. But in all honesty, MxM and his/her little hatred and racism is important: It represents the way a LOT of Christians feel about the Jews. Most Christians, somewhere inside, HAVE to believe that the Jews killed Jesus. They HAVE to. If they believe that Jesus was the Son of God and this mystical superhero from outer space, then they HAVE to hate the Jews. THAT'S why anti-Semitism is SO rampant in the world, that explains Hitler and the Middle East and a lot of other anti-humanity we've seen. White people HATE us Jews because they believe, somewhere inside, that we killed Jesus. Oh, the high IQs, cultural inclination towards brilliant wit, towering deli sandwiches, and true bedroom skills don't help our 'cause either. You missed my Grandad, Himmler, and gonna steal your grand-daughter!

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 8:31 p.m. CST

    MxM

    by Krinkle

    Listen, man, the minute you feel hatred on Jesus's behalf, you've already lost anything the man might have taught you by way of the Bible. But in all honesty, MxM and his/her little hatred and racism is important: It represents the way a LOT of Christians feel about the Jews. Most Christians, somewhere inside, HAVE to believe that the Jews killed Jesus. They HAVE to. If they believe that Jesus was the Son of God and also this mystical superhero from outer space that's gonna come back one day and let them see their dead grandparents again, then they HAVE to hate the Jews. THAT'S why anti-Semitism is SO rampant in the world, that explains Hitler and the Middle East and a lot of other anti-humanity we've seen. White people HATE us Jews because they believe, somewhere inside, that we killed Jesus. Oh, and the high IQs, cultural inclination towards brilliant wit, towering deli sandwiches, and true bedroom skills don't help our 'cause either. You missed my Grandad, Himmler, and I'm gonna steal your grand-daughter! I'm the "true evil that lurks around you" M+M! Especially on Fairfax!!!!

  • GG HARRY

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 8:37 p.m. CST

    Does the title of this article sound like a really bad joke to a

    by TheSecondEvil

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Once agin we have two reviews which blather on about the film's

    by Mister Pink

    Let me say this one more time just to be clear. The Passion story is just a story. It is NOT FUCKING IMPORTANT to anyone who isn't a Christian. Here's another little factoid for you. Pilate probably never knew who Jesus was. Jesus was just one more rabble-raising asshole that that had to be strung up to keep the peace during passover. It was a completely unremarkable event as far as Pilate was concerned. There was no trial before the Sanhedrin. There was no "threat" to the Jewish power structure. There was no Jewish responsibility whatsoever for the death of Jesus. It was the ROMANS you assholes. Get it straight. The Gospels were written long after the fact by people who never met Jesus (no, Matthew and John were not written by apostles). Jesus' little group of followers scattered after Jesus was arrested and when it came time to write the gospels the authors had to make shit up out of their asses. They took some OT verses out of context and misconstrued them as "prophesies" which they then strung together to fabricate the passions. Read John Dominic Crossan's book WHO KILLED JESUS? for details. Now can somebody tell me why I "must" see this thing or what possible message it could contain that's so Godfucking important? What do I have to know? Is there ANY message in this thing besides "Jesus died for your sins" because that's a pretty lame-ass fucking message. Also, why won't any of these reviews tell us if Gibson depicts the resurrection. It's not like that would be a big fucking spoiler or anything. I'm probably going to see this, and i like the idea of using Aramaic and Latin (even though he uses the WRONG fucking Latin) but he shouldn't have caved in with the subtitles. Subtitles are for stupid people who can't figure out what's going on.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 8:39 p.m. CST

    Plus,

    by TheSecondEvil

    seriously what's up with the talkback order. Harry for the love of God sort it out.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 8:42 p.m. CST

    @ bjarki56

    by chrth

    To disprove your point, I'm a devout Catholic, and I think Pontius Pilate is the most intriguing character in Jesus Christ Superstar, as well as what little we see of him historically. In the end, he's the most human in the story: he can do what he feels is right, or that which he feels he must. It's Nuremburg, but with a twist: instead of following orders, he is forced to obey his subjects. Compelling stuff.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Interesting discussion, so far...

    by Moonwatcher

    Hans, you pose an excellent question. Some scholars feel that Jesus' predictions concerning his passion might be more of an example of the evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) writing their own expectations into the gospel record, as opposed to actually quoting Jesus himself. It could seem that the Passion of Jesus would make more sense if he were in a position to trust in God, instead of merely jerking around like a puppet on a string, or simply acting out a pre-ordained script. As for anti-semitism, it is also true that the gospel testimony (particularly John) at times appears to be painting the Jews with a rather broad brush. Tragically, this has convinced many within (and without) the faith to take these words at face value and find excuses for all kinds of outrages to be perpetrated in the name of Jesus. It, therefore, should not be surprising that some of those outrages should be reflected in the opinions of some in this talkback. Finally, the events of the passion have, indeed, been trivialized by reptition and over-familiarity with the story. It will be interesting to see the reactions of those who have been lulled into this familiarity after they view the horrors of scourging and crucifixion (which, by the way, was imposed on many other Jews, besides Jesus). If nothing else, the recommendation of an atheist should pique the curiosity of many who are sitting on the fence.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 8:49 p.m. CST

    Heya RK100

    by micben1

    There is one statement that you failed to say: "I saw the film at such and such a showing". Barring that, I would say that you not qualified to comment on the film. The persons who have written reviews have seen the film. So what is the story RK100? Did you see the film or not, or are you just parroting the opinions of other people who have not seen the film?

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 8:56 p.m. CST

    Why the film is not anti-semetic

    by Vegas

    This is very evident once you stop READING about the film, and just SEE the film. Yes, the film portrays some jews as the ones calling for, and ultimately responsible for, the sentencing and execution of Jesus. However, they are not the ones responsible for Jesus' death, and I'll get to that in a second. The jews depicted in this film also include several dissenting Pharisee priests, who are sent away for their outrage at what they rightly saw as a disservice to one man's rights as a human being. Other jews include the apostles, Mary Magdalene, Mary (Jesus' mother), Simon (the man who helped Jesus carry his cross), and oh yeah, JESUS HIMSELF. And as for the Jews killing Jesus, think about this. Jesus could have come down and ended it at any time. But he didn't. The Jews had no power over him, save the power he gave them. This is also made evident in the film. Jesus LET himself be killed. It was JESUS' decision.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 9:24 p.m. CST

    check the passion

    by anaelmasri

    dear membersz, i made a non profit site in support of the upcoming mel gibson film THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, i support the freedom of artistic expression as a filmmaker myself, and i really admire the challanges and his work..i thought id notify you about the site , and the site contains load of info, anything you can imagine, so plz visit it, dont forget to register in the forum to recieve the lates.. http://www.thepassionofchrist.tk thank you,

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 10:08 p.m. CST

    That motherfucker must have been getting a nice blowjob from a g

    by tequilaworm

    Make up your mind! Did you like it or hate it? Was it brutal or amazing? WTF!...CHEERS Amigos!

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 10:10 p.m. CST

    Nathaniel Brandon, Ayn Rand

    by Anal Inflictor

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 10:12 p.m. CST

    A quandry

    by mascan

    Will the Religious Right praise the film for its subject matter or denounce it for its graphic violence?

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 10:21 p.m. CST

    Catholics aren't taught to hate Jews...

    by JMM-MUK

    I haven't posted here for ages, but as a lifelong Catholic, and someone who's gone to catholic schools from Grade 1 all the way to college, I wanted to comment here. First, in all those years of religious education, I've never been taught that Jews are bad or that Jesus was against the Jews, etc. Jews were Jesus' followers and he, himself, was a Jew. At nearly every mass you will go to, a passage from the Old Testament -- the Jewish scriptures -- is read. On masses held the night before Easter, the passover story is read. The Last Supper is the apostles' passover meal. As a Catholic, I, too was taught the ten commandments. In fact, the early church was so filled with Jews, that there was supposedly debates about whether or not non-Jews should be allowed to join, and whether or not they would have to be circumcized to do so. The point of the writers of the New Testament was not that Jews had gone bad, but that the Jewish leaders at the time, especially religious leaders, had become nearly obsessed with Jewish law, even at the expense of compassion, etc, for other people. Much of Jesus' teachings ignored the letter of the law, and as he gained followers, the Jews in power saw him as a threat to their religion and maybe even their own power. Again, these were the majority of the Jewish leaders in that region at the time. Not all Jews, and not even all Jewish leaders. After hearing the story of Jesus over and over for all these years, I've never been taught to hate Jews. And I've never heard any priest or nun encourage me to. And I think it's silly for people to fear anti-semitism will be encouraged by this movie. The countless other films about Jesus are not accused of doing that, and I can't imagine Mel Gibson is interested in causing this. But the bottom line is this: Gibson is portraying the story as seen in the Bible. As for Pontius Pilate, the Bible doesn't whitewash him. It doesn't dwell on him long enough to get much of an impression of him at all. As I recall, his main part in the passion is trying to figure out why some Jews would want to kill Jesus for what he didn't think was that great an offense, and asking why Jesus refused defend himself against his accusers. He is not seen as a good man, but basically as someone, saying, "Fine. who cares? I'll put him to death if they want me to." Now, I know nothing about the historical Pilate, so maybe he was a really bad guy, but he's seen mostly as someone who's uncaring, and just gives the Jews what they want to shut them up. Besides, why would the writers of the New Testament want to whitewash him? He's just not important enough to the religion to care that much about him. Now, even though I'm a catholic, I'm fascinated by looking at the Bible historically. Many historians tend to believe Jesus did exist, whether you believe in the resurrection or not. At the very least, he was a man who preached love and acceptance and peace, and was put to death because they way he taught them went against those in authority. And at the very least, Jesus' life is just a good story...

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 10:21 p.m. CST

    Thanks Harry, Saffy, and Abstruse...

    by viola123

    Hi all. I haven't been able to read the TalkBack thread for this particular post yet, but wanted to type up my own thanks for the reviews, and for making this happen, Harry. I still can't believe that Mel Gibson was there, and he talked with you all for 90 minutes. I think it's wonderful that he was finally able to discuss his film with a group like this; with those who did not have an agenda or a bias. But just a group of film lovers, of admirers of cinema, who would hopefully watch his film as art. I know I am going to watch "The Passion of the Christ" as a story, a film. In college, I took a course, "The Bible as Literature." Perhaps that helps me in this instance. I just truly want to see it, and am very glad that we'll all get that chance. We might have to travel to the nearest art house, but it will be worth the trip. It sounds beautiful. Is that the right word? Powerful. A film that will stay with you; one that will inspire discussion, just as these reports and reviews have, and the 90 minutes following its premiere at BNAT. :) Harry, that is very cool how you got Mel Gibson to bring his film to the Alamo Drafthouse, and gosh, it was last? That's even neater. Saffy and Abstruse, thank you for your reviews. It was great to read them back-to-back, and I'll look forward to reading this TalkBack, but can't quite seem to load the entire thread, *grr*. And lastly, I'm still tripping over the fact that the trailer for "The World of Tomorrow" was shown. Jude! I'm so jealous, and because I am, it helps you know, it helps to write about it.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 10:29 p.m. CST

    Answer to HansDelbruck

    by darthhaole

    I cannot wait to see this movie. Hans, I've struggled with that question myself and think I've got at least a reasonable answer. Obviously I can't prove that it's true. It's just what I happen to believe. I believe that although Christ knew he would be resurrected **before** he was hung on the cross, that at some point while the event was unfolding, he found himself actually doubting that it would happen. When Jesus cried out, My God why have you forsaken me, I believe that this was not just some dramatic expression, but that he REALLY felt forsaken. In my opinion,at this point, he couldn't see the other side of the tomb. All he could see was his death (and seeing those that he came to save cursing his very existence was obviously not making things any easier). In other words, at this point, he believed he would die on the cross and that would be it...no resurection...totally forsaken, despite his accurate prophecy prior to the event taking place. I believe He most likely experienced this when as one other poster mentioned he was "separated from his Father" because of the sins he was now bearing. To me, the sacrifice of Christ is much more than just the physical suffering that he endured, but the fact that he was still willing to hang there and die even when he felt totally forsaken. Actually paying the ultimate sacrifice. I believe this because since he was God (yes I believe this) that if he had wanted to come down off the cross, that he could have of his own power. Alternatively, I believe that every angel in Heaven would have come to his rescue if he'd wanted them to. But, even though he could not see the other side of the tomb, even though he felt forsaken, he remained on the cross so that we could have salvation. God was willing to truly die for humanity. Not just the Friday to Sunday nap in the Tomb. Anyway, like I said, I can't prove it. It's just what I belive. There's more, but this isn't the right place. Let the flaming begin. :-)

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 11 p.m. CST

    Good Ganesh!

    by Boba Feet

    Maybe, perhaps, just possibly we could have a movie about something more interesting than Jewish mythology? I mean, come on, if we're going to pimp out our deities at the cinema we could at least choose an interesting pantheon. How about the Vikings? Giants, trolls, goat chariots, axes and hammers, blood eagles and Ragnarok. I'd pay serious cash to see Ahnuld as Thor....or the Hindus? Kali kicked total ass all over demons, Shiva going at it like a sex god, beheadings, mass murder, shapchanging gods, plagues! Fuck Yeah! After all, all we're talking about is a matter of degree here- if you think that ANY movie is made without wanting to turn a profit, you're delusional as the average zealot. So we might as well make it really entertaining...a Bhuddist kung fu flick, an Apache shaman teaming up with a Coyote totem to kill the white man. the most interesting parts of the Bible always get left out.....and the devil gets the shaft because he has a crappy PR department.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Hey! What the Fuck??

    by Boba Feet

    Is up with this? And I quote from the column directly to my right as I write: "hate speech are all fodder for deletion." I think saying that the Jews killed Jesus might qualify, huh? I mean, what does MxM have to do, cut and paste a burning cross into his post? Watch the posts, Harry, or I'll crucify you :)

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 11:10 p.m. CST

    Mr. Pink is back...

    by CaptainHendry

    Back with another long-winded recounting of your unfortunate collegiate encounter with textual criticism. Did your teachers mention that the same claims about prophecy were made with regard to the entire old testament. Clearly the whole thing was re-written in order to conform to the events portrayed in the Gospels, the experts said. Then, VIOLA, the dead sea scrolls are discovered. Suddenly there is a near complete copy of the OT dating to a time well before Christ. And guess what, the prophecies are all there. Give it time. A piece of the gospels dating to preAD 70 will show up one day. And then you can spend all your time trashing its provenance, just as I'm sure you do with the ossuary (James son of Joseph brother of Jesus) discovered last year.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 11:13 p.m. CST

    Making a movie about Jesus is a cheap way to get people into the

    by Holly_Wight

    I don't believe Jesus- as he is portrayed in the Bible- ever existed. He's a fictional character, and he's worth big bucks. People buy a ton of Jesus merchandise. They buy Jesus books, bumper stickers, statues, paintings, t-shirts... Jesus is the ultimate marketing mascot. His followers never tire of him, never question his existence, never get bored with his being whored out to sell cheap crap. This may be a well-made movie, but it's still a Jesus movie, and with so many people still believing this old-world, primitive tale about imaginary beings and all the various old pagan myths re-written to serve the Christians, it's a sure-fire money maker- Especially when we have Governor Bush in the White House doing everything he can to kiss the radical evangelists' asses, and declaring war based on his conversations with God Itself. I'm sorry if people are offended by my lack of faith, but it's not like Christians have done much to welcome the lesbian community into their love-fest, and when you start to pull on the threads at the edge of Christian dogma, the whole thing unravels pretty quickly. I'd suggest watching this movie, and then spending the next few weeks watching the Discovery channel, just for some balance. If anyone can come forth with any crumb of evidence- aside from hearsay- that Jesus Christ existed at all, I'd be impressed. I'd still think he was just an old-world version of David Blaine, but I'd still be impressed. Christians have yet to bother to prove anything, and they say it's a matter of faith. Well, my having faith doesn't stop Christians from waiting outside gay bars and abortion clinics ready and willing to kill for Jesus. Faith is for fools, and even if God did exist, he could just go fuck himself for all I care.

  • Dec. 8, 2003, 11:55 p.m. CST

    sources, and pilate

    by Tesarta

    I'm not RK100, but I can answer the question about sources at least in my case. New Testament scholars such as E.P. Sanders, Rudolf Bultmann, Albert Schweitzer, Joachim Jeremias, Norman Perrin, Bornkamm, Kasemann, Koester, Meeks, Theissen, Holladay... to name a few. Anyone in the field working on historical Jesus research, basically. As for contemporary sources, there aren't many, but you do have people at the beginning of the second century talking about followers of a man who was executed by Rome. (Pliny, Celsus, others.) There is also a lot of data on Roman political policy, which makes it very clear that crucifixion was a punishment reserved for sedition and insurrection. It's also clearly established in the historical record that the Jewish political authorities during Roman occupation had very little effective power outside the religious arena... It's best to avoid the popularized historical Jesus work (liket the Jesus Seminar and so on), because it's 90% sensationalized crap. The same goes for anything about Pontius Pilate. We do know a few things about him: he set up images of Caesar in the Temple as soon as he arrived, until he was forced to take them down because the population was pissed off; he refused to reside in Jerusalem, because he hated it; he ignored more than one local petition for changes in policy; and he was recalled abruptly by Rome, presumably for mismanagement. Other reports about him suggest that he was not a very nice man. On these things you can always look at Josephus' "The Jewish War", for starters. It was written in the late 60s (not the 1960s, the 0060s). I could list a bibliography of scholarship in the area but that would be a very long post.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 12:02 a.m. CST

    Answer to Yossarian

    by darthhaole

    This movie is going to raise a lot of questions in a lot of minds that I don't think mainstream Christianity has answered very well up to this point. I have come up with an answer to your question that makes sense to me, but I'll be as brief as possible here. For a more complete answer on how I personally believe Christ's death saves humanity, email me if you'd like (just click on my name). To me, it all boils down to rebellion and free will. The Bible teaches that when God created man, it was all good. Man rebelled and since then things have gone rapidly down hill. God has been trying to restore us to the Utopia that existed at creation ever since. He will not force anyone to obey and yet God requires obedience to his law because the absence of this obedience leads to suffering. If you love your neighbor as yourself, you won't rob them or kill them. If we all lived the life of Christ, we'd have Utopia here today. More on this later, but basically, God's ultimate law is LOVE. Jesus illustrated what a life that follows this law looks like. Everything that Christ did illustrates perfect love and service to others. For this, he was executed on the cross by men who were more interested in their political influence than doing the right thing. Christ's very existence threatened them and they were willing to do anything to keep their standing. Even kill an innocent man. There's more to it than just that and hopefully Mel's movie will illustrate the reasons why those that wanted him killed worked to have Jesus killed. From the reviews it sounds like he did a good job. According to the Bible, Salvation will come only to those that have embraced God's law of love. According to the Bible, living this life cannot be fully realized without accepting Christ as king and savior of our lives. This would take a long time to explain so I won't do it here. Those that have never heard of Christ can still be saved as the bible says the spirit of God has been made manifest to all mankind. Everyone, everywhere has had the opportunity to obey or disobey the principals of God's law of Love whether they know who's principals they are or not is not the most important thing. How do I know that God has my best interests in mind? How do I know if I personally want to put aside some of my personal greed and desires and obey the principals of love. To obey Jesus? Well, basically, Jesus' life and death create an event that allows me to understand who God is. His life and death explain much about God's character and the depth of his love for humanity. Jesus was willing to die permanently to save us. That's a bigger sacrifice than anyone else can make because none of us have as much to give up. We're just mortals. He is divine. See my previous post for more on my theory of his willingness to die permanently and not for just 3 days. God did not force the men of the day to execute Jesus, but he knew that his very presence would lead to this. He allowed them the freedom to do it. God knew that this was the only way to illustrate the ultimate result of disobedience to his law of love and the only way to illustrate the depth of his love for us. He invites us to look at this and choose if we want to make Jesus the king of our lives. If we want to make the principals of the Law of Love the center of our lives. If Jesus isn't the type of King that you want to serve, then he won't force you to. You have this live, but that's it. If he is, then he invites you to his kingdom for an eternity in paradise (yet another topic that would take a book to explain). The bottom line is that God wants to save mankind but he does not remove free will in order to do so. He won't force anyone to obey or follow him, even though this means that the innocent will many times suffer. If someone choses to strap a bomb on themselves or fly a plane into a building and kill innocent people, God will not prevent this from happening. Bad things happen to good people as a result of people doing bad things. It's up to us individually to chose how we will live our lives. We can chose to help others, or hurt others. Jesus lived a life of service to everyone he came in contact with and yet he suffered the most violent form of execution that existed at the time. Christ's life and death illustrate who God is, what he wants for us, what the ultimate result of sin is (innocent people suffering/dieing). If we chose to live our lives apart from God, he allows this, but as the Bible says, he has a better plan for us, if we are willing to submit to his way. But God will not allow the suffering that exists in this world to go on forever. Thankfully, at some point in the future, God will put an end to the cycle of suffering that currently exists. Those that have chosen Christ's path, a path of love and service, will be welcomed into the new Utopia. Sin will not arise again, because those that have been invited to the kingdom will have decided in their hearts that living a life of Love and service is all important. By the way, I don't believe the Bible truly teaches an eternally burning hell. This is a misinterpretation. It would take too long to prove this here, but if you look at all the texts in the bible on the subject, it does not teach that God will torture anyone for all eternity. Sin will end though. Anyway, sorry for the length. Can't wait to see the movie. Email me if you want.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 12:15 a.m. CST

    Douglas Adams has it right...

    by Nickdude77

    There once was a man who though we should all just be nice to one another for a change... then, he was nailed to a tree. The end

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 12:20 a.m. CST

    But do they explain why people think he was crucified?

    by Rcamacho2278

    when you look up at capitol punishment at the time at it wasnt a cross but a stake that he was hung from. And it was also shown that not his palms but his wrists where nailed in. If he was nailed in his palm it would have ripped off, but in his wrists the nail would be in between bones and hang on that. so im sure they got the story right but im wondering if they got the facts right. and if the jews start bitching that this film is anti-semetic, they need to stop and think "maybe our people really DID kill our messiah" and stop waiting for him cuz hes NOT COMING!

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 12:41 a.m. CST

    anti-semitism.. bs

    by hector

    Anyone who thinks this flick is anti-semetic (particularly not having seen it) is a jackass, period. To believe that, you _must_ believe the gospels are anti-semetic, because THATS WHAT THE PASSION IS BASED ON. Get over it. Do you hear the Egyptians getting up in arms about their portrayal in the 10 Commandments? Its the jewish version of what happened, so what?! Christians dont get to make movies about their version of events 2000 years ago? So you think the gospels are BS? Fine, lots of people think the Torah is BS too, does that mean the 10 Commandments should be burned?

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 1:55 a.m. CST

    Science Speaks

    by ShiFty_BoY

    The Old Testament contains over 300 references to the Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus. In

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 1:56 a.m. CST

    Holly Wight and other naysayers...

    by TheDangerMan

    Without trying to be too condescending, please look at the date...and note the last for numbers. Please tell me what they stand for... Here is a more direct reference if you are looking something a little less concrete: the Jewish scholar Flavius Josephus wrote a few latin texts for the Romans to record Jewish history from before Moses to his own life (37 AD - 92 AD?). He also wrote about the here-adored Pilate (love his exercises) and John The Baptist. See, when someone hangs on a cross until he is dead, and then returns alive to hang around for a few weeks walking and talking in public (read John Chapter 16 it's short), it tends to make news (re: Lazurus). Up for debate is how much Josephus respected Jesus (Josephus being a Pharisee), but there is no doubt Josephus know of Him. So, yes Holly, there is a Jesus Christ. Don't believe me...believe history.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 2:03 a.m. CST

    (humbled) sorry..."four numbers"

    by TheDangerMan

    as in the year

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 3:22 a.m. CST

    Doesn't anyone ever stop to think...

    by Daryl van Horn

    ...because everyone on this site seems to blindly go with the notion that the descriptions in the bible are a 100% true. It's NOT a history book. Especially not the four gospels. It's a collection of religious pamphlets that were written decades after Jesus' death and generations apart and are four VERY DIFFERENT versions of Jesus' life and death. Different versions because each writer had a bit of a different agenda. And in movies they always create a FIFTH version in which elements from all four are combined. Pick and choose, since there are often 4 different words for Jesus at what are supposed to be the same scenes. So WHY would any ATHEIST say "this is the most important film ever made"? Why? If you are christian, then obviously you feel that way. But if you are an atheist, than this is a movie based on some dubious religious writings without any historical evidence about a man who was executed (Like there were dozens executed per week at that time I might add) of whom YOU as an atheist believe was just another Joe Schmo. So WHY and HOW is this 'the most important movie ever made' for anyone who is NOT a christian? Just because Mel chose to focus on endless gruesome torture scenes instead of on Jesus' teachings and life? I don't get you people, I really don't. And I am not worried about anti-Jewish sentiment rising up after this opens. I am worried about everybody's guilt- and shock buttons being pushed and America going straight into religious overdose. Like this country needs that. Sure it's SUPPOSED to be a good thing, but funnily enough, elements like intolerance, bigotry and fanaticism always are present in such times. Like this country needs more of THAT! I'm sure abortion rights, gay rights, religious diversity and censorship will be WELL served by that. Oh and Mel Gibson is a member of a Catholic Church branch that sticks to the midieval belief systems and disavows the modernisation of the Vatican in '65. One of the elements Mel's church disagrees with is the notion that the Vatican NO LONGER officially blames the Jews for Jesus' death and should be made to suffer. (Official policy for over 1500 years and Mel's church would like to stick with it) Just something to think about, Harry, while you're still squirting over the heavenly notion that Mel himself graced you with his presence. And lo and behold, nothing but gushing reviews. I dare you to place a single negative one. I never give much thought to the accusations that you 'sell out' but here I get a sense you know what side your bread was buttered on... Hey, Mel is an able filmmaker, but the focus of this site on this movie right now is ridiculous. The movie is still religious propaganda any way you cut it. Oh and in case anyone wonders, I'm not an atheist, sorry.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 3:24 a.m. CST

    Doesn't anyone stop to wonder....

    by Daryl van Horn

    ...because everyone on this site seems to blindly go with the notion that the descriptions in the bible are a 100% true. It's NOT a history book. Especially not the four gospels. It's a collection of religious pamphlets that were written decades after Jesus' death and generations apart and are four VERY DIFFERENT versions of Jesus' life and death. Different versions because each writer had a bit of a different agenda. And in movies they always create a FIFTH version in which elements from all four are combined. Pick and choose, since there are often 4 different words for Jesus at what are supposed to be the same scenes. So WHY would any ATHEIST say "this is the most important film ever made"? Why? If you are christian, then obviously you feel that way. But if you are an atheist, than this is a movie based on some dubious religious writings without any historical evidence about a man who was executed (Like there were dozens executed per week at that time I might add) of whom YOU as an atheist believe was just another Joe Schmo. So WHY and HOW is this 'the most important movie ever made' for anyone who is NOT a christian? Just because Mel chose to focus on endless gruesome torture scenes instead of on Jesus' teachings and life? I don't get you people, I really don't. And I am not worried about anti-Jewish sentiment rising up after this opens. I am worried about everybody's guilt- and shock buttons being pushed and America going straight into religious overdose. Like this country needs that. Sure it's SUPPOSED to be a good thing, but funnily enough, elements like intolerance, bigotry and fanaticism always are present in such times. Like this country needs more of THAT! I'm sure abortion rights, gay rights, religious diversity and censorship will be WELL served by that. Oh and Mel Gibson is a member of a Catholic Church branch that sticks to the midieval belief systems and disavows the modernisation of the Vatican in '65. One of the elements Mel's church disagrees with is the notion that the Vatican NO LONGER officially blames the Jews for Jesus' death and should be made to suffer. (Official policy for over 1500 years and Mel's church would like to stick with it) Just something to think about, Harry, while you're still squirting over the heavenly notion that Mel himself graced you with his presence. And lo and behold, nothing but gushing reviews. I dare you to place a single negative one. I never give much thought to the accusations that you 'sell out' but here I get a sense you know what side your bread was buttered on... Hey, Mel is an able filmmaker, but the focus of this site on this movie right now is ridiculous. The movie is still religious propaganda any way you cut it. Oh and in case anyone wonders, I'm not an atheist, sorry.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 3:32 a.m. CST

    flipster...

    by DocPazuzu

    ... Please explain to us why what you said is any different from, say, someone saying "fuck African Americans" because he/she just happened to have been mugged by a black person once? If self-hatred floats your boat, cool, but to somehow imply that your father's jewishness (or rather your mother's lack thereof) was what impelled him to abandon you is just sick -- not to mention much more convenient than just coming to terms with the fact that your dad is a prick, plain and simple. You have serious issues, chief.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 5:12 a.m. CST

    Email me if you have problems you chickenshit bastards

    by TheAbstruseOne

    1) This film isn't anti-semitic. Anyone who says otherwise, INCLUDING the ADL, hasn't seen the fucking film yet. RK100, half the shit you're talking about isn't in the movie. 2) I chose my words very carefully when talking about this film. When I say that I can't say I liked or disliked, loved or hated this film, I mean that. This film goes beyond that. This film is amazing and brilliant beyond personal opinions. There are few films like this. GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES is another one. I just can't use personal opinions when describing that film either, but it is without a doubt the most important animated film in history in my opinion. PASSION is the same for me. 3) Pilate says in the film how much he hates his post and hates the people, how much he doesn't want to be there. But at the same time, he doesn't want to have to deal with the hassle of a revolt. And that's what he has here, a very tough situation. If he kills Jesus, then the Christians revolt. If he lets Jesus go, the Jews revolt. So he tries to pawn Jesus off on someone else. That doesn't work, so he tries a compromise. He called for Jesus to be "punished" (IE whipped and beaten for 20 or so minutes on screen -- I wasn't kidding when I said this was a BRUTAL film, they literally show nothing else for at least 20 minutes other than Jesus getting the everloving fuck beaten out of him). BTW, PILATE wants Jesus tortured, not the Jews. The Jews just want him dead. So he tries to just have Jesus punished. The Jews still want him dead. So Pilate plays his last card. He gives the Jews a choice. They can either release Jesus, or they can release a convicted multiple murderer. They choose the murderer. Pilate realizes there's nothing he can do, so he washes his hands of the whole issue and says "I did not kill this man. You did." Was he spineless? Yes. Would you have done any different in his shoes? Of course not. Remember, prophets claiming to be the King of the Jews and the song of God are a dime a dozen around this time, even ones that can do magic tricks. This one has a pretty large following though. The leaders of the Jews, the largest segment of the population in your province, has a problem with the leader of another large faction. It shouldn't be your problem in the first place. If you do the "right thing" which seems so logical, you have damn near your entire population revolting against the government. When this happens, news will reach Rome of your fuck-up and you will be removed from power, most likely on a nice cross of your own. Or you can just kill the guy (remember, this is just one of literally dozens of leaders of cults in the area at the time, and as far as you know he's no more the son of god than John or Michael or Brian or any of the other cult leaders) and then have to deal with THEM revolting against the government, again ending in your removal and death. Are you going to try your best to find a middle ground that will keep the peace, even if it's to save your own ass? OF COURSE YOU ARE! That's what makes Pilate my favorite character. I think I've addressed the largest complaints I've seen in the talkbacks so far. If you have anything else to say, my email address is right at the end of the review, and I'm in the chatroom damn near all the time. If you have the balls, come say it to my face. And have a nice day. The Abstruse One

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 5:28 a.m. CST

    Obviously The Passion is a cash in on the whole Kill Bill money-

    by Magnus_Steele

    Obviously.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 5:54 a.m. CST

    4 very different gospels...you shmuck

    by TheAquabatman

    i dont have time to talk gospel, i'm here for movies but if you say that the gospels are very different you're a complete tool. they are different perspectives and the only contradiction that exists between them is that of Judas death. geesh... The author of the bible... God, yes hello, there is a God... sorry you atheist fools, even stephen Hawking has to admit it and eistein, they had no other conclusion... anyway, The biggest event in history was written for us not just from one perspective but ... four... wow, could it be so, yes it is get over it. Very different... what a shmuck...

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 6:10 a.m. CST

    4 very different gospels...you shmuck

    by TheAquabatman

    i dont have time to talk gospel, i'm here for movies but if you say that the gospels are very different you're a complete tool. they are different perspectives and the only contradiction that exists between them is that of Judas death. geesh... The author of the bible... God, yes hello, there is a God... sorry you atheist fools, even stephen Hawking has to admit it and eistein, they had no other conclusion... anyway, The biggest event in history was written for us not just from one perspective but ... four... wow, could it be so, yes it is get over it. Very different... what a shmuck...

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 6:44 a.m. CST

    Jason Byrons, reviewer.

    by kultur

    Abstruse is Abstruse@cpe-24-174-234-28.gt.rr.com * Jason Byrons from DALnet's #atheism. <3

  • DALNET #ATHEISM HE IS A FUCKTARD

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 6:59 a.m. CST

    Hmmmmm a Mel Gibson film.

    by nervous twitch

    And the English aren't the bad guys? You lie! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL ! !

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Barrabas

    by JohnnyAlpha

    On the subject of the Jews favouring a murderer over Jesus, some historians believe that Barrabas was more of a 'freedom fighter' in the PFJ mould than a mere wobber or despewado. The Jews, in fact, considered old Joshua bar Joseph to be a bit of a ponce, going on about peace and love and rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's rather than striking a blow against the Roman occupier. In that light it's hard to blame them for favouring one over the other, and any Christian Jew-haters out there should honestly ask themselves who they would have chosen at that time given the options - hippy or patriot? And in any event, if the Jews hadn't had him killed, where would Christianity be now? If you are a believer, weren't they just playing their fore-ordained part in the whole sorry pantomime?

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 9:38 a.m. CST

    I thought....

    by Jon Zuckerman

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 9:39 a.m. CST

    I thought......

    by Jon Zuckerman

    that the Romans killed Jesus not the Jews. Get your facts straight.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Reading all the reviews on this site so far reminds me...

    by numberface

    Of reading archives of the reviews and op ed pieces published about 2001 and A Clockwork Orange. Back in a time when people felt films were IMPORTANT enough to write about, argue about, and debate about in the media. I'm looking forward to seeing this film and I'm looking forward to hearing/reading all the discussion of it in the press and on the street. I can't wait to see The Passion. THIS IS SO REFRESHING. Finally, a movie we can TALK about. Not argue trivia or how stupid Lucas is. Remeber when movies were important because of what they said, not because of what the opening grosses were??? How long has if been since we've seen one like that?

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 9:58 a.m. CST

    You know who killed Jesus?

    by Wee Willie

    We all did.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 10:12 a.m. CST

    atheism is a religion

    by Mr. Impossible

    You learn that in Philosophy of Religion 300. Mysticism Theism Secularism

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 10:20 a.m. CST

    the problem with films...

    by boohallsmalls

    like this and with modern christianity in general is that it makes the man more important than the message. as far as a movie is concerned, i know that the human element is very important, but there are a lot of ignorant people who will take this as historical fact (which it isn't, its partly based on a novel). to put so much emphasis on the greatness or the suffering of the man as the most important aspect of the story, takes away greatly from the message that man was trying portray. which is why there are so many prejudice christians (not that any other religion has less perjudice, but part of Jesus' message was complete tolerance and respect for ALL mankind). religious films are inherently dangerous because of the ignorance of the general population, and its not that a film portrays hate or anti-semitism, but that it can be taken that way, by the basest impulses of our culture. and make no mistake, if it can, it will. not that means the film should not be released, but it raises questions about the validity of such films. if everyone was well educated and level headed about these things there would be no contreversy, but people are filled with prejudice and hate (especially in matters of religion these days) and a film like The Passion can and will fuel that, whether it intends too (which Im sure it doesn't) or not.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 10:22 a.m. CST

    check this out..

    by Octaveaeon

    http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0345/winter.php

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 10:47 a.m. CST

    There are NO prophesies of Jesus in the OT!!!

    by Mister Pink

    There is not a single fucking word in the OT about Jesus, people. Not a fucking syllable.And Jesus did NOT fulfill ANY of the Messianic prophesies that ARE in the OT. Most of the so called "prophesies" that you dumbass fundies are brainwashed into thinking were fulfilled by your "savior" are pulled completely out of context and have nothing to do with either Jesus or the Messiah when read IN context. You don't know what the fuck your talking about and I do so just shut up because yopu make yourselves look stupid. Also, the Josephus quote was a forgery so get that shit out of my face.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Hey Mr. Impossible...The word 'Atheism' itself MEANS 'without th

    by HansDelbruck

    Thats what the word means. 'Without Theism'- without religion. I don't care what spiritual significance you care to attach to it. Not everyone needs a fairy tale to hang their life on. The definition of the word is 'WITHOUT THEISTIC BELIEFS'.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 12:02 p.m. CST

    omission of GREEK language- big error

    by leonidas300

    Apparently from all reports, i have read about people seeing the movie (on this site) and also from the description by Mel Gibson himself, the Greek language is not used any where in the movie. For a person who wanted to make the Passion of the Christ somewhat authentic this is a glaring error, for as is known during that time period, Greek was the main language as english would be considered today. I am not saying that Jesus spoke only Greek, but he would have spoken to the romans in Greek and very possibly to others in that region (Jews would have spoken it too). The Roman empire had taken up Greek culture and ideas and the whole known world at that time would be totally influenced by it. So to have a whole "authentic" movie about Christ's last 12 hours without Greek language being used at all is totally ridiculous. I am suprised no one else brought this up to attention.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 12:55 p.m. CST

    There's that word again...

    by DarthCorleone

    I have trouble fathoming how this could be any more "important" than any of the other great films I have seen or will see. Why does that word immediately spring to the minds of so many of the reviewers? I'd pass it off to religious bias if y'all didn't have such a fair cross-section of reviewers. Don't get me wrong, it could be a good or even great film, and I could enjoy it in spite of my anti-Christian leanings. Anyway, I guess I'll see the movie for myself and find out.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Good to see this kind of review

    by Sanji

    I'm glad that Harry decided to include these two reviews on the site. As a Wiccan who has spent over two years at a Christian school, I've become wary about movies and events that, while they seem entertaining, are really no more than a means for conversion. These reviews--particularly the latter--allay my fears. I can't wait for this movie to come out, now; even for me, heathen that I am, it's still one of the greatest stories ever told. Thanks!

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 3:02 p.m. CST

    you can't use OT as an acronym for "Old testament" on this site

    by Yossarian

    That one is already claimed and it's frequent use notwithstanding designates it as the "true meaning" of OT. (Tongue-in-cheek)

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Jesus Died For God's Sins

    by alithere

    Robin Williams had a routine in which he said that, in addition to a Son, God also had a Brother. Unfortunately, the Brother is a ne'er-do-well who can't hold a job and basically messes up any task, no matter how simple. But Holy Family is Holy Family, so God gave him a job, making His Brother the earth's Superintendent. And we all live with the results. Well, I think that Robin has a point and it fits nicely into the Jesus story. Jesus may have died for our sins, but God also had some atoning to do--just ask Job. Perhaps on the cross God and his creation are joined in suffering, the engine of love. The core appeal of Christianity for me is that it is fundamentally fair. If we have to suffer, die, and live in a state of almost perpetual hopelesness, why shouldn't God have a little taste of it too? How could He otherwise dare to judge us? Shakespeare said it best, "he jests at scars who never felt a wound". Amen.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Hey Aquabatman, ignorant much?

    by Daryl van Horn

    First off YES the four gospels are VERY different as anyone who's ever actually looked into it can tell you. Jesus' reactions to Judas' kiss don't match. The so called cross-words don't even match! The time when he was supposed to've been in sanhedrin doesn't even match! Who was standing at his cross at the end doesn't even match and I could go on and on. Oh and thanks for calling me names just for posting my opinion. Aren't you supposed to be the christian? And yet who starts with the verbal abuse? Very nice, but I don't even know why I'm surprised. And oh, your brilliant attempt at 'converting' the rest of us. Just SAYING that you're right and just SAYING there's a god obviously proves it right? Bloody brilliant! Gosh! I'M shoor convinced NOW! And for frag's sake stop misquoting people smarter than you! Neither Stephen Hawking NOR Albert Einstein believes/believed in a personal god as both have CLEARLY stated time and time again. As even you could learn had you bothered to spend 10 seconds researching what you say. But here let me make it easy for you. Here's a quote from Einstein, writing a letter to a man who asked about his beliefs when he heard people (like YOU presumably) say that he believed in God. Einstein: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." There. Read that? So much for "the only conclusion he could come to" eh? Good, remember it next time you're LYING about people's convictions to serve your own damn agenda.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 6:36 p.m. CST

    A Rebuttal to the comment "The Jews Killed Jesus"

    by reidja01

    Fellow Readers - At the risk of sound pompous I must state the following which should be an obvious truth held by anyone calling themselves Christian. When Pontious Pilate had the Lord Jesus in his custody and was questioning Him he stated the following - "Tell me who you are, do you not know that I have the power to free you or put you to death". The Lord replied "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given to you from above, for this reason, HE who delivered Me up to has the greater sin" Is Jesus saying that God sinned? Obviously not, the implication here is that the soul responsibility for the death of Jesus lays at the feet of God. Christ Himself said that He was giving His life as a ransom for our lives. Hence it was not the Jews who killed Jesus, it was for the redemption from sin that His body was brutally tortured and killed. I have found that most who propagate this untruth of the "Christ Killing" Jews are anti-semites who falsly claim themselves to be Christians, or simply ignorant of the facts. Furthermore, to collectively stereotyping anything is dangerous and generally leads to unnecessary divisions in our communities. It is a true statement that Christians love people but despise sin. Sin is what kills people and it was for sin that Christ was killed - Regards,

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 7:28 p.m. CST

    The Greatest Story Ever Told

    by DansLaLuna

    Kind of a cliff note version of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Check it out

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 8:13 p.m. CST

    My post was deleted???

    by gurglesnap

    Wha--?

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 8:17 p.m. CST

    Oh, it WASN'T deleted. It's just that I am a moron.

    by gurglesnap

    Not that any of you A: care, or B: are still reading this thread. All is well. Move along.

  • Dec. 9, 2003, 11:55 p.m. CST

    HELLOOOO

    by calraees

    I dont know why everyone is taking this flic so seriously. I mean its only a film, from Mel Gibsons point of view. Nothing is so amazing about it being in aramaic, i mean alot of chinese actors have spoken in english through transliterated texts, and so its no biggy. I just hope people dont take the events in this movie as being a de facto recreation of ancient times. For that matter we dont even know when Jesus was around, and we certainly dont know how is mother or he himself acted as such. The media is very influential and has been known to affect gullible viewers. No matter how goot the acting, or how heart wrenching Mary seems, this is fiction. People would be wise not to go overboard and start taking this film as truth, because frankly no one knows what really happened and it would thus lead to a rather pathetic exercise in extreme delusionment.

  • Dec. 10, 2003, 1:51 a.m. CST

    Reply to Sheikh Boosteezi

    by calraees

    I am not telling anyone that its wrong, all I am saying is that they shouldnt take it as being 'the word' on history. How anal do you have to be to understand that. Thats like taking what Bush says about Iraq and taking it as being the de facto truth. As for the history, thats just my point you camel-humping ass, 'no one' knows what happened. Im no source on things that may or may not have happened and I am not saying I have any of the answers. AS for it being art, thats something else. Confusing it with being the real story of Christ is another, It could be a dangerous precedent. Know what I mean, koos.

  • Dec. 10, 2003, 3:06 a.m. CST

    Apologies to Yerbouti

    by calraees

    Due to the fact that posts are not put in chronological order, I mistook your post as referring to mine. I do apologize for the rather harsh tone employed within and do hope that there are no hard feelings.

  • Dec. 10, 2003, 3:37 a.m. CST

    Just two things to add.

    by Sepulchrave

    These religious films are used by missionaries (with who Gibson is closely allied) in developing countries where the populations have a far more credulous and fervant belief in visual images than we do around here. They are only part fiction and they are HUGE moneymakers and conversion machines for children. Secondly, the only thing you have to remember about JC was that he denounced wealth and violence. Rich men are evil men and shall not be saved. Violence of all kinds must not be revenged but forgiven. Unless you obey this you are not a Christian. No self-defence, no righteous charity, no good deeds can make up for being very wealthy or violent.

  • Dec. 10, 2003, 6:11 p.m. CST

    Response to Hans

    by Bighonkin

    The point is that the sacrifice had to be made. Christians believe that God set itup so that sins couldn't be forgiven without the shedding of blood. In fact, the Bible says that without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sin. So in the Old Testament, God - in his covenant with the Jews - set up the way to perform sacrifices. Once a year the Jewish nation would celebrate the day of atonement when sacrifice would be offered for the sins of the nation. The problem is that an animals blood could not completely pay for a person's sin. Therefore the perfect sacrifice had to be from a perfect, unblemished person. And God chose to do this through Jesus. That's the reason for the sacrifice. The resurrection is to set Jesus apart from all other teachers, prophets, preachers, and religious icons. He rose in order to conquer death. Because of His resurrection, he now holds the keys to Hell and Death. Basically, the death was the payment for sin, the resurrection was to seal a victory over the forces of Death and evil. Sorry so long.

  • Dec. 10, 2003, 8:07 p.m. CST

    Censor

    by Damer1

    Harry censors anyone who has a mildly positive view of the Christian faith.

  • Dec. 10, 2003, 8:40 p.m. CST

    A polite question I have to Jews about their religion (or race?)

    by OingoBoingoBoy

    I have a polite but firm question that has bothered me for the longest of times that I just want a Jewish person, or someone who practices Judaism to answer me: Why do I occasionally hear someone who's Jewish say or make a joke about "the man" or "white people" when, last time I looked at them, their Calcasion / White? This isn't mean or anything, but maybe someone can explain it to me. Like can so many still trace EVERY, SINGLE line of their blood & heritage to the middle east? Is that what some mean? I was also thinking of John Stewart's very funny old HBO special (fuck, that was like what, earily '96?) and also I've been studying the porno world as of late. Hey, I'll dmit unlike some talk backers I'm a lonyly soul. ;) But, all jokes aside, from studying Toyboxx.com and the internet movie database and such, and I know legendary Sex performer Annie Sprinkle and Nina Hartley (the latter a still hot blonde in her late earily '80s as most of us know)are both full blooded Jewish, and hey I have no problem. I'm not some idiotic anti-semite. But they naturally have made lover to many lovely men & women, and most of them have to belong to other religouns. Also, why do Jews care so much about merrying their own? Personally, if their mother & father really loved them, they whould let them merry whoever they want like many are doin' now. Just a thought. By the way my last name is McKenzie, and I'm Scottish & Irish with a little bit of German in me. I was raised in a practicing Catholioc home though I'm an Atheist now. Anyone can ask me a question if they want. I don't find it arrogent myself, as someone said, though feel free to ask me anything. Also I still consider Jews calcasion, and Judaism is a religoun. That's basically what I was saying. I hope no one gets up set. This isn't a racial thing but was just curious. Most Jewish families come from Eurpe, which is why there are Polish-Jews, Hungarian-Jews, self depricating German Jews, ect. Also this responce was promted cause of one guy way up there that said "you whites don't get about us Jews", and I was thiking "Huh? If someone is anti-semetic, there just an close minded, hatefull asshole who loathes your religioun. Race isn't a factor". Last time I checked Jerry Seinfeld and Sarah Silverman were very white acting. Also I was lookin' at Sweetloads.com movies. Go to Kazaa or Morpheous and download this file. Search for "Ivy - Sweetloads". Very interesting Jewish princess type with a Star of David tattoo on her backside. She seem's just as white to me. Later all ...

  • Dec. 20, 2003, 9:15 p.m. CST

    Bible - Fact or Fiction??

    by jeffp

    Supported by Proof, Prophecy, Science? The late Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, was one of the leading authorities on the reliability of ancient manuscripts. He drew this conclusion: "The interval then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." To those who might be open to truth and are interested in researching the other side of the story. Here's some interesting information. www.reasons.org www.crucifixion-1.com/ www.the-case-for-christ.com/ www.is-the-bible-true.com www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml www.clarifyingchristianity.com/m_prophecies.shtml www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml www.answersingenesis.org www.probe.org/docs/bib-docu.html www.probe.org/docs/auth-bib.html www.probe.org/rusty/docs/newtestament.html www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html Peace