Wonderfully written and expressed review. Thank you very much. <br><br>One thing I would change for myself would be to say "I think you'll enjoy the film" to "I think you'll appreciate the film".<br><br>That is what I've told others about Monster. It is not a film to enjoy but many things about it can be appreciated.<br><br>Great job Sam. Wish you'd copy/paste this review to that other forum. <br><br><br>KateMate
#142787 - 02/25/0409:51 PMRe: The Passion Of The Christ: My review
Yeah Sam, thanks here too. I am familiar with the story of the suffering of JC, but I don't need to see this brutality on screen.<br><br>Interesting that is does come off as portraying the Jews as the ones responsible for his death. I wonder why Gibson chose to depict it that way when historically (from what I have been hearing) it was the Romans that were responsible. Ah well, the religious agenda of someone brought to life, I suppose. <br><br>Monster was an interesting film Kate, but too gritty for me. Amazing that they could make the gorgeous Charlize Theron look like they did. <br><br>
#142788 - 02/25/0410:24 PMRe: The Passion Of The Christ: My review
Last night (25th), Discovery had a special about who killed Jesus. Of course, I'm just finding out about it now. I'll keep an eye out for future airings.<br><br>But I do remember watching a Discovery special about Jesus. It made clear that the temple authorities were quite corrupt at that time.<br><br>
why does it even matter who killed the guy? <br><br>jesus' death, biblically...was the will of god...<br><br>mark 8:31-33<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>(31)He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. (32)He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.<br>(33)But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."<p><hr></blockquote><p>i think people debating who was ultimately responsible for jesus' death miss the point...just as peter did (assuming one believes the bible is an accurate representation of these events).<br><br>
I've just finished a section of a course that I'm teaching (on "mythology") in which, of the historical books of the Old Testament, we read Genesis, Exodus, Judges, and 1 and 2 Samuel. We read other OT books, then read in the New Testament we read the Gospels, Acts, and Revelations. So we got to read the alpha and the omega of human history <br><br>Anyway, my take on what happens in the Gospels (with teh exception of the Gospel of John) is that they reiterate the pattern of the OT. In the OT, regularly, Israel becomes apostate. God punishes Israel with exile, sometimes geographical as in the Babylonian captivity and sometimes political as in the Persian occupation. Eventually God recruits a judge or prophet who reminds Israel of its duty; Israel recovers its customs and faith; the people overthrow the invader; and God smiles on the nation once again.<br><br>The New Testament isn't explicit about the kind of apostasy that Israel has undergone, although it's not hard to understand from some of the actions Christ takes that it involves a radical secularization of the state (money lenders in the Temple, for instance). Seen from the persepective of the OT pattern, the Roman occupation is inevitable as God's punishment for the apostasy. Again from the pattern of the OT, Jesus's mission, like the mission of John the Baptist, is to recall the nation to its duty, just as any Judge or Prophet did in the OT.<br><br>What strikes me very forcibly in rereading the Gospels--the Gospel of John aside, which verges on anti-Judaism as it begins to establish a "new" theology--is that the Pharisees, along with the priesthood, are doing exactly the same thing that Jesus is. And they are doing it in ways that are much more like teh pattern of the OT than what Jesus does. They are very deliberately and carefully harking back to the practices defined in the OT law of Moses (the Mosaic or Talmudic Law) in order to change the apostasy of the people, just as Samuel, a Judge, does, for instance. Jesus is approaching the same task from a different angle, which from the perspective of 2000 years later begins to define the Christian dispensation, at least indirectly (except for the Gospel of John, which is theologically more developed and so different from the other three Gospels and radically so from the OT).<br><br>Again from the perspective of 2000 years later, with Christianity in the ascendancy in Europe and the Americas, it's easy enough to say that he Pharisees and the priests are dead wrong. But that's 20-20 theological hindsight, IMHO. The OT is also full of "types and figures of Christ," as they're called, who almost but not quite fulfill the role of Messiah--Samson is one case; so is David. If I were a faithful Israelite in the first century, trying to figure out how to liberate my nation from the abomination of Roman occupation, I would probably believe that the way to do it is to pay attention to the Pharisees, who affirm the old ways that have always worked to restore the nation.<br><br>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
I'd love to be in that class. I'd like to be in a bible book club to look at things objectively. i am still full of catholicism and their point of view (i even attended a catholic school for a spell while growing up). i haven't opened a bible in probably 15 years or more. the book i am reading about christian fundamentalists is raising some questions about many things that i always just assumed to be accurately represented/interpreted from the teachings of the catholic church with regard to the bible. i did a very poor job of questioning religious things while growing up. <br><br>--------------<br>"Question with boldness even the existence of a god."<br> A letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787 by Thomas Jefferson
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.