Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (30641)	2/20/2004 8:11:36 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

No, it has nothing to do with the film. The film isn't based on historical truth, it's based on the Gospels The film seems to be based just as heavily on the visions of two seventeenth century nuns as on the Gospels.

To: Ilaine who wrote (30641)	2/20/2004 8:43:17 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

No, not at all. I am commenting on the irrelevance of an historical analysis of "what actually must have happened" in the context of the film. No, actually, you said this, which explains my impression: "I don't expect an atheist to know the Bible, and am not at all surprised that the author's viewpoint. Perhaps if pressed she would disavow the miracles and the Resurrection, as well." But this movie is only about what is portrayed in the Gospels. Nothing more, nothing less. Untrue. According to Gibson, it also draws on an old book Gibson found in his library, "The Dolorous Passion," by Anne Catherine Emmerich (I get the impression that she's some kind of nutty nun, though perhaps a believer in miracles would see her as a sensible woman.) And it's being touted as "the truth" -- "Gibson's Passion for the Truth," etc. And this matters, imo. But maybe the Polish and Russian and Latvian and African audiences, and the audiences all over the Muslim world, will look at this this film as you suggest, as though it were analogous to The Odyssey or The Lady of the Lake. No reason to get all anti-Semitic about what presents itself as a mere fairy tale, after all. One of the Gospels is thought by some to have been written by an eyewitness - Mark. The others are clearly based on eyewitness accounts, from differing witnesses. "By some"? hmmmm. Well, here's what Burton Mack, whose Book N recommended for anyone interested, says of the Gospel of Mark, "As for the author, we know only that we do not know who it was. The Mark to whom the Gospel was attributed is a legendary figure from the second century." From N.: Unless you're an inerrantist who believes in all of the (contradictory) accounts of the same events, there is no evidence that any of the Gospels represented reference to "eyewitness" accounts. They represented reference to widely inconsistent stories in circulation about the origins of their movement. In fact, the early church was so upset about the manifest inconsistencies between these foundational accounts that a Syrian church man named Tatian (ca.160 C.E.) produced a 'harmonization' called the Diatessaron, meaning "One-through-four," which had "an extensive vogue in Christian circles."

To: Ilaine who wrote (30641)	2/20/2004 11:41:11 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

Mark wasn't an eyewitness. There is a church tradition (not stated in Mark, of course - none of the Gospels state their sources) that he was a follower of Peter after Peter journeyed to Rome. If so, Peter would have been an eyewitness. Was Mark really associated with Peter? No one knows. I read a news magazine which described a scene in the movie in which Jesus is being led away by Temple guards and Mary Magdalene calls out to some nearby Roman soldiers for help. Nothing like that is in the New Testament, of course. And is highly improbable. If the movie has material in it that doesn't come from the Gospels, but from some nun's vision a century or few ago, that would bother me. Even more so if the movie claimed to be faithful to the scriptures.

To: Ilaine who wrote (30641)	2/21/2004 12:08:21 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

I should have added - church tradition does credit Matthew and John to disciples of Jesus, who would have been eyewitness. Although neither of these Gospels (or Mark either) actually identifies their author. With Matthew there is the problem that Matthew includes a lot of material from Mark. Why would an eyewitness need to use Mark as a source? And then one can ask how about those situations where the Gospels describe something happening which the disciples couldn't have witnessed? Like the temptation of Jesus by Satan in the wilderness, like Jesus continuing to pray after the Scripture says his disciples had fallen asleep, or things that occurred after Jesus was arrested and the disciples had fled. OTOH because one can reasonably question some things or because we can't know the Gospels were written by who tradition attributes them to, doesn't mean it's correct to state they are simply fictional fabrications. They may be based on oral tradition handed down from eyewitnesses. Which seems reasonable to me.