The controversy surrounding The Passion of the Christ

About C.S. Lewis, much greater minds than his (Descartes, Pascal) couldn't make a logical case for Christianity. Small wonder that he failed too.

That's clearly only your opinion. Hardly justification for calling him "thoroughly debunked."


Jabba-
1) the story of Jesus' crucifiction is not defamatory against Jews, if true. If true it's just history. But its historicity is a hotly contested point, even among Christians, many of whom believe that the "truth" of the New Testament is of an allegorical nature.

Bubba(restating Jabba's argument)-
- Historical claims about Jews doing bad things aren't anti-Semitic if they're true.

- The historical claims of the NT can't be verified.


Seems alot like the same argument to me.


Jabba- I never once argued in any of my posts that the ahistoricity of the gospels is proof that Mel Gibson's film is anti-Semitic.

And Bubba never once suggested that you did. Read more carefully.

 

I never once argued in any of my posts that the ahistoricity of the gospels is proof that Mel Gibson's film is anti-Semitic. You only make yourself look foolish by pulling down your own straw man.

However, you have said...

The only thing I can say for the movie is that at least Gibson is honest about embracing the anti-Semitism that still lies at the heart of Christian beliefs. In a way, the movie is doing the world a service by exposing the blatant anti-Semitism of the Christian audiences that are embracing it. [2/27]


I'm saying that The Passion of the Christ overtly embraces the more anti-Semitic undertones of the New Testament and of Christianity itself (one of Christianity's worst flaws over the past 2000 years and one which continues to linger and mar the faith like a cancerous growth), and that embracing this movie as a great film is like a ratification of that anti-Semitic undercurrent. [2/27]


[The Passion] is anti-Semitic only if the Gospels are anti-Semitic, only if Christianity is anti-Semitic, only if a hatred of Jews is embedded in the New Testament.

At last, Pat Buchanan and I see eye to eye on something. [3/3]


I tried to make sense of it, but again I have to point out that the new testament has first-millennium Roman anti-semitism incorporated into its very structure, and that Mel Gibson, in his movie, enhances that inherent anti-semitism and makes it central to his presentation of Jesus... Jew-hating is almost certainly at the core of Mel's belief structure in the same way it lies at the core of Christianity itself. [3/9]

On no less than four occasions you suggested that Christianity and the New Testament itself are anti-Semitic.

Around 3/16, we argued over whether the NT is anti-Semitic for portraying those Jews who wanted Jesus dead as being on the wrong side of history.

You ended up saying, "I don't think that in any way impacts on the inherent anti-Semitism of the film."

I asked, "If it has no impact, then the anti-Semitism must be something somewhere else, but what? and where?"

The closest you've since come to actually explaining your position that the NT is anti-Semitic is asserting that we can't ever truly know whether the NT is historical.

If that isn't proof of the text's anti-Semitism, what is?


About C.S. Lewis, much greater minds than his (Descartes, Pascal) couldn't make a logical case for Christianity. Small wonder that he failed too.

"Lewis was thoroughly debunked" is not proven with the assertion that "Lewis failed to make a logical case for Christianity."

Trying proving an assertion rather than restating it.

 

Quoting me out of the context of the ebb and flow of the conversation is in itself intellectually dishonest.

Christianity defines itself as the dividing point between Judaism and Christianity, although the truth of course is that Christianity arose out of pagan traditions in 1st and 2nd century Rome. The real source of Christian anti-semitism is its inheritance from preexisting Roman anti-Semitism.

But regardless of the historical truth of the rise of Christianity, the Christians define their religion as the point at which Judaism becomes obsolete. Consequently, major films about Christianity have the potential to publicly rub Christianity in the nose of Judaism, so to speak.

Any film that fails to show sensitivity to this issue opens itself to controversy.

However, Gibson made matters worse by encouraging the controversy through his early PR campaign. He also compounded the problem by picking and choosing from the four gospels to create an overall version of the story--HIS OWN VERSION--that foregrounds the manipulativeness of the Jewish leaders - particularly by choosing the version in which Pilate attempts to order Jesus beaten and set free. The Jewish leaders witness the severity of the flogging, then return to demand the crucifiction.

So, posters who said "it's an accurate portrayal of history," or "an accurae portrayal of the gospels" fail to even address the issue of anti-Semitism at all because, 1) the gospels themselves are problematic for Judaism, 2) the gospels aren't proven to have much historical content, 3) Mel's version is his own and not mandated by the text of the gospels. The emphasis of "Mel's story of the crucifiction" really has to be on "fiction."

Since it's his version of the gospels, not the gospels themselves, Mel Gibson has to take ownership of the controversy, particularly since he helped launch the controversy.

Add to that the many dramatic weaknesses of the film and it's poor presentation of Christian doctrine. It emphasizes hatred, sadism, and Jewish bloodthirstiness over all other messages. It needlessly draws attention to the scourging, which itself is full of wrongheaded dramatic embellishments, at the expense of Christ's suffering on the cross.

Finally, I don't think it speaks well of the Christian right that this mess of a movie is bringing Mel Gibson one of the biggest single paydays ever conferred on a Hollywood director. But as we all know this is only my opinion.

"Trying proving an assertion rather than restating it." - Not in this thread. Bring up the debate in which you try and fail to win by using C.S. Lewis's arguments. We can discuss Lewis more there.

 

You accuse him of picking and choosing, perhaps then you could point out some passages he left out.

And once again you've stated your accusations in depth but provided not a shred of evidence to support them, you seem very adept at that.

 

Christianity defines itself as the dividing point between Judaism and Christianity, although the truth of course is that Christianity arose out of pagan traditions in 1st and 2nd century Rome. The real source of Christian anti-semitism is its inheritance from preexisting Roman anti-Semitism.

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel that assertions such as these shouldn't fly without some hard evidence. Jabba, if Christians are anti-semetic for being insensitive to the place Judaism takes in their religion, then you're being anti-Christian for treating these opinions on Christian origins as fact and being insensitive to their implications to believing Christians.

 

First things first, Jabba.

If this is the wrong thread for you to prove your assertions that C.S. Lewis is "one of the most thoroughly debunked Christian thinkers of the 20th century" and that Lewis failed to make a logical case for Christianity, it is also the wrong thread for you to make those assertions in the first place.

If you're not willing to back up your claims about Lewis here, you shouldn't make them here.

Or, if you're going to keep making wild accusations then run and hide the moment someone asks for proof, you should stop accusing others of intellectual dishonesty.


To the meat of your post...


Quoting me out of the context of the ebb and flow of the conversation is in itself intellectually dishonest.

Christianity defines itself as the dividing point between Judaism and Christianity, although the truth of course is that Christianity arose out of pagan traditions in 1st and 2nd century Rome. The real source of Christian anti-semitism is its inheritance from preexisting Roman anti-Semitism.

I quoted you to show how you've had this constant mantra that Chistianity's anti-Semitic.

You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty -- which is your right, I suppose -- but you prove my point in the very next paragraph by asserting, once again, that Christianity is anti-Semitic.

Do you have any proof to back up that assertion?


And, speaking of assertions, you claim that "Christianity arose out of pagan traditions in 1st and 2nd century Rome." You seem fairly confident in your claim, particularly in your use of the phrase "of course."

I seem to remember you saying that the historicity of the Gospels is in question -- that the historicity "is a hotly contested point, even among Christians, many of whom believe that the 'truth' of the New Testament is of an allegorical nature."

(Pardon me for quoting you, as doing so tends to offend you so.)

If the historicity of the Gospels is in question, that means the Gospels could be true. But your claim that Christianity "of course" arose from Roman paganism seems to assume that the Gospels are false.

Okay, but where's your proof? Where's your proof that the Gospels are false or that Christianity arose from Roman paganism?

Or is this yet another subject that is conveniently off-limits in this thread?

 

Since it's his version of the gospels, not the gospels themselves, Mel Gibson has to take ownership of the controversy, particularly since he helped launch the controversy.

Add to that the many dramatic weaknesses of the film and it's poor presentation of Christian doctrine. It emphasizes hatred, sadism, and Jewish bloodthirstiness over all other messages. It needlessly draws attention to the scourging, which itself is full of wrongheaded dramatic embellishments, at the expense of Christ's suffering on the cross.


Wouldn't it be nice if Christ's words and teachings were the emphasis of most Christian thought, rather than his suffering and death? I love Jesus Christ's message to the people he spoke to, but I fear his many followers who ignore what he said and pass judgement on others as if it were their place to do so. I think Gibson falls into that category of people, which is unfortunate, because he really isn't a bad filmmaker.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if Christ's words and teachings were the emphasis of most Christian thought, rather than his suffering and death?

This seems fairly nonsensical to me (pardon me). Christ's words and teachings *are* the emphasis of Christian thought - and so is his sacrifice, because that's why he came into the world. It makes perfect sense to meditate on and pray about Christ's suffering and death, because he took on the sins of the entire world, an innocent lamb who bore our wickedness and sacrificed himself so we would not have to die. He, as perfect God and perfect man, conquered death for us by his suffering and resurrection. This is the central mystery of all of Christianity.

So no, it wouldn't be nice if we de-emphasized reflection on the passion and death of Christ. But it is important as Christians that we spend our lives studying all of his life, praying and doing our best to understand and live the Gospel and spread Christ's light to the world.

As for Gibson, where in this film does he "ignore what he [Christ] said and pass judgement on others as if it were their place to do so"? ? He's presenting the story of Christ's suffering and death.

 

Another thought occurred to me, Jabba.


But regardless of the historical truth of the rise of Christianity, the Christians define their religion as the point at which Judaism becomes obsolete. Consequently, major films about Christianity have the potential to publicly rub Christianity in the nose of Judaism, so to speak.

You do realize that Jewish scriptures foretells of a new covenant, don't you?

"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." - Jeremiah 31:31-34

Christianity does what Judaism predicts. At the very least, Christianity can claim that Judaism predicts it.

Jewish scripture shows that Jews consistently strayed from God's path, so I don't see the problem, per se, with Christian scripture doing likewise. Jewish scripture predicts a new covenant, so I don't see the problem, per se, with Christianity asserting that it points to that new covenant.

What's the problem with asserting the "obsolence" of Judasim -- as you put it -- if it's built in to the religion? if Judaism itself predicts a new covenant?

 

Farraday wrote: "You accuse him of picking and choosing, perhaps then you could point out some passages he left out."

I simply pointed out that Mel Gibson did not have to present the story in terms of Pontius ordering Christ beaten and released, after which the Jewish leaders went back again, after judgment had been rendered, and demanded the crucifiction once again. The decision to use John, I believe, was driven by the desire to make the Jews look more culpable.

As to Bubba's strange assertion that "Jewish scripture involves Jews making mistakes, therefore Christian scripture should be allowed to do the same thing. To me this is like the difference between a black preacher standing up and sermonizing about the need for black men to take a more active role in holding the family together, vs. a white preacher getting up and saying that blacks are poor because black men are lazy.

Christians have it easy, since all the moral lessons of their scriptures use Jews or egyptians or Romans, etc. as the objects of their stories. It would be nice if Christians took all their moral teachings from stories about themselves, for example a bible chapter devoted to the anti-Semitic history of the Christian church would be approrpiate as a source for Christian morality lessons.

By the way Bubba, your sig is a perfect example of Lewis's intellectual bankruptcy. He steals the aphoristic style of Oscar Wilde in order to make a immature assertion about atheism that he would never be able to prove in ten lifetimes of failed philosophizing. I think he just hoped it sounded witty. And you bought into it.

 

Hehe.

So your idea of picking and choosing doesn't involve dropping passages, but having the temerity to actually include them as written.

That rat bastard!

Mind=boggled.

 

farraday.

If Mel Gibson had done a straight retelling of John, that would have been one hting, but he also included elements of the other gospels, thrown in according to his personal tastes. Not there's anything wrong with an independent artistic interpretation of a literary source, but it would be inaccurate to call it a "true to the gospels" without explaining the kind of creative choices Gibson made.

 

Couldn't it have been that he chose John because alot of Christians see it as the most narrative-like of the Gospels? And adding from the other Gospels is proof of nothing other than Gibson trying to tell a fuller story. You can only use this to back up your argument if you can provide evidence that Gibson's choices have actually generated anti-semetism in the story. It seems to me like you're begining with the assumption that the story is anti-semetic, and working backwards to try to find something to support your assumption.

 

I simply pointed out that Mel Gibson did not have to present the story in terms of Pontius ordering Christ beaten and released, after which the Jewish leaders went back again, after judgment had been rendered, and demanded the crucifiction once again.

But that's what really happened the Jewish leaders wanted him dead.

The decision to use John, I believe, was driven by the desire to make the Jews look more culpable.

No all the Jews are culpable. Only the ones that wanted the death of Jesus.

 

Jabba: Of course he hoped it sounded witty. It's not meant to be debated over until we've all grown beards and stuff.

Attacking someone's sig is rather pointless -- methinks you're running out of ammo.

 

Christians have it easy, since all the moral lessons of their scriptures use Jews or Egyptians or Romans, etc. as the objects of their stories.

What's funny is how Homer's books, The Illiad and The Odyssey are all about Greeks and Trojans and how Norse literature/mythology is about fair skinned, blonde/red haired people. Hmm, I wonder why these various writings actually have people of a certain nationality ? Oh, wait, I know! Maybe the book was written about PEOPLE? Yeah, that's right! People are all of a certain nationality! That's it! So if a piece of literature is written about the people of the region it's author is located in, you're bound to read about people who belong to the culture of that country.

It would be nice if Christians took all their moral teachings from stories about themselves, for example a bible chapter devoted to the anti-Semitic history of the Christian church would be approrpiate as a source for Christian morality lessons.

The "Holy Office of the Inquisition" etc. may have ran around holding Bibles and praying but that doesn't exactly mean they were true Christians.

Heehee, what I find kind of ironic is how people who give the ignorant accusation that a movie like The Passion is anti-semetic based on what they see on the surface are usually the same kind of people to single out all true Christians based on false ones. The ones who would hear quotes from a few speakers would judge the whole religion they know nothing about yet if a giant group of terrorists are Muslim and you were to judge them with the same ignorance then that would be the wrong thing to do, right? A story is made about Jesus and one small group out of millions of Jews is presented in the movie at a time and place where the people in THAT AREA are primarily Jewish yet the people who tell the story are the ones making ignorant generalizations of a whole race of people?
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. People who have read the Bible and the Koran have done wrong, but NOOOO, never blame a group of a few people of Jewish ethnicity/religion because you're singling out the whole group and giving false accusations of their motives, which of course is something you would never do, right?

One thing I don't think anyone gets clear is this - If a story is written about PEOPLE and PEOPLE come from a certain country, they're bound to be from some race. Could you tell me what race of people has never had a person in that group that has done wrong? As I stated in my thread here in The Senate, people who give false accusations of ignorant generalization by what they see on the surface are being every bit as ignorant as the accused person would be if they were doing what they are accused of supposedly doing.

 

You usually won't find me in the theater. But when I witnessed some posters (I carry no television) I knew I was interested. Perhaps I went to see it in hopes that I could find the courage I once had to redeem myself. Perhaps the sheer beauty of a film that realistically describes this man's suffering appealed to me. Either way I saw it. I found that it was beautiful, intense and I found no root of anti-semitism. I'm a former Catholic. I know a great deal about the Bible. It was amazing and I see no reason or foundation for these criticisms.

 

Jabba:

In addition to responding to what you did write, I will note what you didn't write, namely a response to my requests for proof of your accusations. You not only refused to provide proof, you refuse to even acknowledge those requests.

You claim that Lewis is "one of the most thoroughly debunked Christian thinkers of the 20th century."

You claim that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic.

You claim that Chrisitianity arose from Roman paganism.

Can you provide proof to back up any of these assertions?


Now:

As to Bubba's strange assertion that "Jewish scripture involves Jews making mistakes, therefore Christian scripture should be allowed to do the same thing. To me this is like the difference between a black preacher standing up and sermonizing about the need for black men to take a more active role in holding the family together, vs. a white preacher getting up and saying that blacks are poor because black men are lazy.

Do you also think that only blacks can use the N-word?

Let me add further to my case: Isaiah 53:1-6 prophesies that the Jews will reject the Messiah.

Who has believed what we have heard?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that made us whole,
and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Jewish Scripture not only creates a pattern of rejecting God, it also out right promises that the Messiah will be rejected -- perhaps by mankind in general, but certainly at least the Jews; hence the use of the word, "we."

What, precisely, is so wrong with the claims that Jesus is the Messiah and that the Jews fulfilled their own prophecy by rejecting Him? Would you have us believe that the Messiah should not fulfill those prophecies that happen to be politically incorrect?


Besides, if you're going to argue that only Jews can criticize Jews, then surely only Christians can criticize Christians. You don't seem to live by that rather obvious conclusion. Why not?


Christians have it easy, since all the moral lessons of their scriptures use Jews or egyptians or Romans, etc. as the objects of their stories. It would be nice if Christians took all their moral teachings from stories about themselves, for example a bible chapter devoted to the anti-Semitic history of the Christian church would be approrpiate as a source for Christian morality lessons.

Peter, for instance, denied Christ and later had difficulties accepting all new Christians. I wonder, do you count Peter as a Christian or as a Jew?

If you count him as a Christian, then it's not true that all our moral stories focus on Jews and Romans.

If you count him as a Jew, what are you doing saying that the difference between Christians and Jews is black and white?

Heck, doesn't the fact that Christians so heavily rely on Jewish Scripture -- holding in such high esteem Jews like Abraham, Joshua, Moses, Ruth, Esther, David, and Solomon -- indicate that maybe, just maybe, Christianity isn't rooted in anti-Semitism?


By the way Bubba, your sig is a perfect example of Lewis's intellectual bankruptcy. He steals the aphoristic style of Oscar Wilde in order to make a immature assertion about atheism that he would never be able to prove in ten lifetimes of failed philosophizing. I think he just

 

NEVERMIND

 

I find it hard to give a crap about Lewis or any of the rest of this thread until someone can provide evidence that God exists in the first place. It is sort of like debating whether Snoopy preferred Pepsi or Coke. Whats the point?

How dare people have a debate about a subject you can't relate to. It's not as intelligent or important as a subject like what the new title for Episode III is or if Sidious=Palpatine. [rolleyes.gif]

 

"You don't seem to live by that rather obvious conclusion. Why not?"

This is an easy one. I grew up with close ties to the southern Baptist and Methodist churches. My wife is Catholic. I think I know these traditions fairly well. Anti-semitism was rampant in the Baptist church of my childhood.

About the pagan roots of Christianity, The core of Christianity (the resurrection/salvation story) was also the fundamental belief of a number of ancient Pagan religions.

Christianity theology borrowed from the story of Buddha, Mithras, Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus, among other. These traditions all predate Christianity. This is evidence in of itself either that Jesus never lived or that an amalgamated pagan mythos was posthumously stapled to some minor historical figure. The simplest explanation is that the mythical Jesus is constructed of many elements from the various religions of the Roman empire, including to some extent (but we must be careful not to overstate the relationship) Judaism.

C.S. Lewis's best moment as an author was of course the Narnia books. The subtle relationship between pagan mythology and Christian symbols as allegorically portrayed in this classic of children's fantasy is perhaps C.S. Lewis's only real honest moment in his presentation of Christianity. Underneath all the bluster, I think he knew the truth.

 

The simplest explanation is that the mythical Jesus is constructed of many elements from the various religions of the Roman empire, including to some extent (but we must be careful not to overstate the relationship) Judaism.

That's ridiculus. What you are describing is an evolution of religion. However, Christianity sprung up in a specific place and in a short period of time. This was not an evolving process.

 

It's not ridiculous: it's the Occam's razor explanation for Christianity: the one that most easily fits all the pieces of the puzzle. It ought to be even more obvious to Star Wars fans, so many of whom read and love Campbell.

Christianity didn't "appear overnight" - it sprang up over several centuries. There's not much evidence of the religion existing at all prior to the second century. It did not really develop as a church until the third century and after. The development of Christianity was a transformational social and cultural movement of the Roman empire.

I'm continuing this at Bubba's insistence, by the way, not because I believe it relates directly to the anti-Semitism of Mel Gibson's movie.

 

Occam's razor does not state that the simplest answer is true, it states all other things being equal the simplest answer tends to be true.

While it does not address the divinity of Christ, the simplest answer to did Jesus exist is he did. You're making up convoluted chains of psuedologic to provide an explination for how christianity could have come around without a Jesus, however you fail to address how this is simpler then it being based on the life of a man and the connections to other mythological religious figures were added after his death.

In any case you apparently have decided to throw out this red herring of an arguement in an attempt to distract everyone from the fact you have no evidence for the gospels nor the film being anti semetic, just circular logic.

"The gospels are anti-semetic, therefore the films are and since the films are accurate to the bible the gospels are anti-semetic"