by Yerusalyim 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
PAT,
Generally speaking this package of benefits they speak of are paid for by the parish. A well to do parish can afford to give a nice package...poorer parishes...nope. Again...these guys aren't getting rich by any means. It's a living...but considering the hours most of them work...it's not much.
I saw it last night and I have to say that I think Mell totally missed the point of the gospels: Love and forgiveness. Instead he focused on scene after scene of gratuitous violence. This movie does not teach love and forgiveness? it is designed specifically to try to make people feel guilty about all that Jesus went through.
Ironically I am always hearing Christians complain about all of the violence in the media... but then they go and say that *this* violence is *good*. So now we have "good" violence and *bad* violence. The only word that comes to mind is: hypocrite.
Jesus? sacrifice was not about being tortured to death... it was about a man without sin dieing for everyone. He could have simply tripped and broke his neck and he would have accomplished what was needed.
All the while he was being bloodied up I kept thinking about the Shroud of Torin... you know... the one that is supposed to be Jesus' burial shroud. The shroud has "blood marks" in strategic locations such as the hands, feet side (from being stabbed with the spear) and his brow (from the thorns). If Mell?s depiction of violence was accurate, then the Shroud of Torin would have been completely saturated with blood and fragments of torn flesh. Don't anyone give me crap about Jesus being washed before being buried... if that was true then the other hand, feet, side, and brow markings would not have been visible either. Either the shroud is a hoax, or Mell went waaaay over the top... or perhaps they are both wrong.
Oh, and the baby thing... I think there is no symbolism to it... that was just one of Satan?s demons.
Bottom line... Mell passed up a wonderful opportunity to tell the world about the life of Jesus and the Love and Forgiveness that he taught... instead he squandered it on a movie that is 90% brutal violence.
The only word that comes to mind is: hypocrite.
I agree! Remember how much crap was said about "The Matrix"?! A movie that IMO could have been PG-13. Now this movie comes out, is many times more violent than "The Matrix" or most other R movies, but it's "good" violence.
To further emphasize my opinion that Mell totally missed the point of the gospels... there is also the fact that the actor who played Jesus was stuck by lightning while on the set... not once, but TWICE.
Anyone believe in signs?
Instead he focused on scene after scene of gratuitous violence.
I think yo missed the point of Mel's movie. Mel's whole purpose was to focus on the passion...the suffering that Jesus went through VOLUNTARILY. Hard to describe that suffering without showing the violence he underwent...and embraced.
Good violence and bad violence? I don't know...does the violence teach a positive lesson? the violence of Natural Born Killers only serves to glorify violence. The violence of Saving Private Ryan taught a lesson.
Who complained about the Matrix? I thought it was a great story, and that the first one was a "spiritual" story. I think most Christians liked it.
RE: The shroud of Turin, the pix I've seen show a person who was scourged, the scourge marks can be seen on the body...especially the back. Remember, Jesus body was washed before it was wrapped. So, are you saying you think the shroud is the real thing?
Oh, and the baby thing... I think there is no symbolism to it... that was just one of Satan?s demons
I gotta disagree, there's a lot of symbolism in the flick. I'm thinking, Satan, Father of Lies, embracing the lie that is sin, that's what I think.
Bottom line... Mell passed up a wonderful opportunity to tell the world about the life of Jesus and the Love and Forgiveness that he taught... instead he squandered it on a movie that is 90% brutal violence.
There are a lot of stories that tell the soft side, Mel's story shows the hard side of love, the brutality that Jesus underwent. The love is seen in that he does this willingly...even embracing the cross. The forgiveness, in that he did it at all...and also in that he's heard to say, more than once, Father forgive them.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that ANYONE who plays Jesus has problems. Had God wanted to send Mel a message it would have been Mel getting struck by lightening twice, not Cazviel.To further emphasize my opinion that Mell totally missed the point of the gospels... there is also the fact that the actor who played Jesus was stuck by lightning while on the set... not once, but TWICE.
Anyone believe in signs?
Here's a description of the shroud image, the scourging is mentioned.
The man is dead, in a state of rigor mortis. There are numerous wounds on the body and blood flows from many of these wounds. Most notable is a piercing wound on one visible wrist, though there are blood flows on both arms that suggest similar wounds to both wrists. There are similar wounds on the feet. The side has been pierced and there is a significant flow of blood and a clear liquid, possibly as a result of fluid accumulation in the chest cavities related to terminal cardio-respiratory failure. About the head are small puncture wounds with rivulets of blood flowing downward and into the hair. One eye seems particularly swollen and the nose seems to have suffered an abrasion. There are abrasions on the nose, on the knees, and across the shoulders. There are the definite images of a traumatic scourging on the back, chest and legs. The triple pattern of dumbbell shape wounds appear to have been made with a Roman flagrum. There are as many as 120 such wounds and it appears that the blows were delivered from both sides and at somewhat different heights, perhaps by two men.
There is dirt on the knees, on the tip of the nose, and on the feet. This dirt contains travertine aragonite limestone found in Israel, likely only found in this part of the world.
The image of the man on the Shroud is anatomically correct and the differences in the vein and arterial blood flow conform to the proper circulation of blood in the body. The distinctive rivulets of blood flowing from the wrist wounds could only occur if the arms were stretched out approximately 65 degrees to the horizon. The thumbs are not visible as would be the case if nails or spikes were driven though the wrists. They would fold under into the palms of the hands. All of this was beyond the knowledge of the medieval period (or before) when such an image, if it was man-made, would have had to have been created
Yerusalyim, you got my curiosity up about "anecdotal evidence suggests that ANYONE who plays Jesus has problems".
Is this just one of those unlucky roles for actors? What have you heard?
Entertainment - AP Movies
Man on Set of 'Christ' Hit by Lightning
Thu Oct 23,11:12 AM ET
NEW YORK - Don't tell Jan Michelini that lightning doesn't strike twice. Michelini, an assistant director on Mel Gibson (news)'s "The Passion of Christ," was nicknamed "Lightning Boy" after lightning struck his umbrella during filming on a hilltop in the town of Matera, Italy, reported VLife, a supplement to Variety publications, in its October issue.
He suffered light burns on the tips of his fingers.
A few months later, while the crew was on a remote location a few hours from Rome, a storm rolled in and Michelini, again carrying an umbrella, was standing beside star Jim Caviezel (news) on top of a hill, the publication said.
"I'm about a hundred feet away from them," producer Steve McEveety was quoted as saying, "when I glance over and see lightning coming out of Caviezel's ears. Both Caviezel and Michelini got struck this time. The main bolt hit Caviezel and one of its forks hit Michelini's umbrella."
Luckily, they weren't hurt.
Somehow, deep down inside, I always knew Jim Caviezal was a lightning rod...
the violence of Natural Born Killers only serves to glorify violence. The violence of Saving Private Ryan taught a lesson.
You missed the point of "Natural Born Killers" - that violence committed upon children can, in turn, breed its own violence. It was, imho, not glorifying violence, but showing the tragedy of child abuse (the girl started off her spree by killing her ABUSER - things escalated from there).
I found nothing redeeming in Private Ryan - glorifying war, that's all it was to me.
So each of us sees a different POV. It's all in one's outlook.
In that vein, I won't see the Passion - not a Christian, too much gore, I already know how it ends.
talesin
