How far did the Gibson apple fall from the tree?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I said people who belong to this religion - Gibson's religion

Gibson's religion is Christianity. Not everyone who is involved in a religion has the exact same beliefs. Protestant and Catholics are ALL Christian, yet they believe in different things. People who belong to Gibson's religion? Christians!

You got caught, just admit it.

Muslims affirm Christ is a prophet, yet they are not Christians.

But they do not consider themselves Christian... that is an important point. And look at what BC has written.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap
Interestingly enough, the Daily News had an interesting piece about the movie yesterday writen by a theologian bringing up an obvious point that it seemed I had missed- I forget which Italian director it was, but one of them made a movie which was basically filming the Gospel of either Mark or Luke, but filming it straight-no script, only the gospel.

Now, Gibson is NOT using any one gospel, and the fact is that the four gospels differ significantly in what events they mention and in the events of his life- Gibson picked and chose the words from each gospel he wanted, so when he says "this is what the Bible says", well, in a way, yes, but he wrote the script, mixed up the four gospels, and thus he does have a choice of what gets included and what is not.

BS

no there isn't significant difference

there are a few things which seem slightly inconsistent, but nothing major

for the most part (or entirely) differences are because one gospel doesn't include something, not that there is incapabilities between two accounts

Jon Miller

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


BS

no there isn't significant difference

Jon Miller

If there are no differences, why were the four gospels never integrated into A gospel?

[TheStinger]

Mel Gibson hates the English more than he hates the Jews.

MAybe he still has a problem with Henry VIII split with Rome ans out heretical practices ever since

[Dis]

anyone read latest articles linked to on the drudge report?

Does anyone find it strange he has to put such graphic violence in this film? I understand Braveheart was the same way (haven't seen it).

I for one love graphic violence, I am seeing this film because of it . But I still find it disturbing that the general population will be seeing this stuff. They can't handle it like I can.

How did Gibson turn from a normal person into a religious nut? I don't understand why people change like this.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by GePap


If there are no differences, why were the four gospels never integrated into A gospel?

Why should they?

[The Mad Monk]

dp

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Mel Gibson hates the English more than he hates the Jews.

I don't understand why he dislikes the English so much, its like he has a vendetta. Is he of Irish descent somewhere? Or does he just dislike people with pasty skin and bad teeth?

[DinoDoc]

What makes you think he hates the English?

[GePap]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Why should they?

If the story of jesus is so singular, ad Jon Miller states, then why make 4 different versions of it cannonical? After all, the Church had plenty of time to just say -this is the story of Christ's life, PERIOD, instead of keeping 4 different stories which sometimes mentioned one thing, sometimes not, leave crucial points out and so forth- for example, if you read John, there is no mention of the census and moving around by Mary and Jospeph becuase of it..so if as Jon Miller says, there are NO inconsistencies, why the redundancy?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What makes you think he hates the English?

Gallipoli
Braveheart
The Patriot

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Gallipoli
Braveheart
The Patriot

Considering the subject matter of the two movies, I fail to see how people can complain about the Brits not appearing as angels of light and mercy.

[GePap]

Ahem, British and English are not the same thing- I though you knew that.

Lets run it down:

Gallipoli: carefree, fun loving Australian boys fed to the meat grinder of war by callous stuffy English generals sitting pretty behind the lines sending Anzac to certain death at the hands of turkish machineguns

Braveheart: brave Scotts fight terrible English oppression

The Patriot: American colonists fight horrific butchering British (though all the officers are English) troops.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Lets run it down:

I've already seen 2 of the movies. I never saw Gallipoli. Hence the question, I asked.

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm not going to see this movie. It holds no appeal for me at all.

[Dauphin]

If the films were not grossly ahistorical then I wouldn't think anything of it. Yes the English have been oppressive, but they did not do many of the things depicted in those movies, and the 'downtrodden' are martyred beyond recognition.

I've also seen him in a few interviews discussing these films, his thoughts about the English roles in these films did not dissuade me from the inkling that he disliked the English, rather it persuaded me of it even more.


I hear that he's making another flick soon, here's the synopsis:

THE BRAVEST NAZI

Brave Nazi officer Adolph Hitler (Mel Gibson) is distraught when his beautiful young wife, Eva Braun (Cameron Diaz) is killed by an unprovoked English bombing raid. He pledges to get even on the cruel English pig dogs, but when he can’t convince his peace-loving superiors to sanction a war, he takes matters into his own hands, and recruits troops for his own invasion of England.

Aboard their small coracle, he raises morale with the following speech: “The colonial scourge of the dreaded English has oppressed and repressed free people for centuries… But now the tide is turning. We, the people of Germany, shall unite the free peoples of this world, and teach the English a lesson, for the hate and prejudice they have inflicted upon this fragile, beautiful sphere… They can bomb our cities, but they can NEVER BOMB OUR HEARTS!”

The movie climaxes with a pulse-pounding fist-fight between brave Adolph, and the cruel English ruler, Winston Churchill (Winston Churchill), atop the Houses Of Parliament. When Adolph gets the upper hand, the sobbing, pitiful Churchill begs for his life. Adolph spares him, but as he turns his back, Churchill cowardly stubs his cigar out on Adolph’s head, killing him instantly… But his legend lives on!

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap


If the story of jesus is so singular, ad Jon Miller states, then why make 4 different versions of it cannonical? After all, the Church had plenty of time to just say -this is the story of Christ's life, PERIOD, instead of keeping 4 different stories which sometimes mentioned one thing, sometimes not, leave crucial points out and so forth- for example, if you read John, there is no mention of the census and moving around by Mary and Jospeph becuase of it..so if as Jon Miller says, there are NO inconsistencies, why the redundancy?

a life is a long time

and we have numerous accounts of other people

what is wrong about having numerous accounts of Christ's life?

and having them all be cannonical

and what one person thinks is crucial, another might not

that is generally the way about stories of people

the redundancy exists because of course if multiple people are writing about the same person they will tell about similiar things

basically quit being completely illogical

Jon miller

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I've already seen 2 of the movies. I never saw Gallipoli. Hence the question, I asked.

So you saw the Patriot and Braveheart and you wonder why people would think he dislkies the English

[Az]

THE BRAVEST NAZI

Brave Nazi officer Adolph Hitler (Mel Gibson) is distraught when his beautiful young wife, Eva Braun (Cameron Diaz) is killed by an unprovoked English bombing raid. He pledges to get even on the cruel English pig dogs, but when he can’t convince his peace-loving superiors to sanction a war, he takes matters into his own hands, and recruits troops for his own invasion of England.

Aboard their small coracle, he raises morale with the following speech: “The colonial scourge of the dreaded English has oppressed and repressed free people for centuries… But now the tide is turning. We, the people of Germany, shall unite the free peoples of this world, and teach the English a lesson, for the hate and prejudice they have inflicted upon this fragile, beautiful sphere… They can bomb our cities, but they can NEVER BOMB OUR HEARTS!”

The movie climaxes with a pulse-pounding fist-fight between brave Adolph, and the cruel English ruler, Winston Churchill (Winston Churchill), atop the Houses Of Parliament. When Adolph gets the upper hand, the sobbing, pitiful Churchill begs for his life. Adolph spares him, but as he turns his back, Churchill cowardly stubs his cigar out on Adolph’s head, killing him instantly… But his legend lives on!

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Big Crunch

I've also seen him in a few interviews discussing these films, his thoughts about the English roles in these films did not dissuade me from the inkling that he disliked the English, rather it persuaded me of it even more.


[/q]

Well he did grow up in Australia - it's an affectionate dislike.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


a life is a long time

and we have numerous accounts of other people

what is wrong about having numerous accounts of Christ's life?

and having them all be cannonical

and what one person thinks is crucial, another might not

that is generally the way about stories of people

the redundancy exists because of course if multiple people are writing about the same person they will tell about similiar things

basically quit being completely illogical

Jon miller

Sorry boy, but you are the one with an ideological slant-to me the christ myth is no less important than the Mohammed myth- which of course is not the same for you.

The whole controversy here is about the line in Matthew in which Pilate says that the blood of this man is on your hands to the Jewish crowd. Interesingly, Matthew is the ONLY one to say this: so Jon Miller, does this mean this is cannonical and true, even if John, Luke and Mark decided to to mention it. And if it was so important (and Matthew was writen prior to Luke or John), why not metion it at all?

[Alexander's Horse]

It's a bit difficult to airbrush the Jewish authorities out of the Jesus murder.

I'm sure there are some Germans who dislike holocaust films because they make Germans look bad but we are on a very slippery slope when we sanitise history.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
It's a bit difficult to airbrush the Jewish authorities out of the Jesus murder.

He was not murdered, he was executed. by the legal authorities.

[Alexander's Horse]

Don't a be a ninny, it was a political assasination.

You'd be the first to howl if it happened today to someone you liked or admired. Double standards anyone?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm on Berz's side of this.

Yes, we Christians positively revel upon the chance of being persecuted.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Don't a be a ninny, it was a political assasination.

You'd be the first to howl if it happened today to someone you liked or admired. Double standards anyone?

Proof? Sorry AH, but no dice.

Political assasination? besides the fact he accepted his faith (after all, didn't he have to die?), it was hardly an assasination, anymore than it was an assasination when someone challenging the status quo back then got whacked in a time that was the standard operating procedure.

Jesus was challenging the political situation in Judea under Roman control- bad idea generally-people who did that (Jesus anyone else) tended to get nailed to a cross.

[Alexander's Horse]

Jesus did not challenge the political situation at all. Quite the opposite. He disappointed and lost followers by making clear he was not planning to lead a Jewish revolt and telling people to obey the authorities.

You really don't know what you are talking about , do you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the story of jesus is so singular, ad Jon Miller states, then why make 4 different versions of it cannonical?

More proof. Basically if you got 4 people saying he did those things, then you got more proof for attacks against.

He disappointed and lost followers by making clear he was not planning to lead a Jewish revolt and telling people to obey the authorities.

That is true, actually. Early Christianity did indeed preach obeyance of Roman law up to the levels of Christian conscience.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Jesus did not challenge the political situation at all. Quite the opposite. He disappointed and lost followers by making clear he was not planning to lead a Jewish revolt and telling people to obey the authorities.

You really don't know what you are talking about , do you.

So basically uo buy the notion the Romans killed Jesus cause the Pharasees told them to? OK then Mr. Gibson.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

More proof. Basically if you got 4 people saying he did those things, then you got more proof for attacks against.

The problem is the four don;t always agree or sitck to one story.

That is true, actually. Early Christianity did indeed preach obeyance of Roman law up to the levels of Christian conscience.

Of course, much of this writing happens after the first jewish revolt when the Romans came down hard, and when the christians were trying to spread to all sectors of Roman society.