Toto

That statement about bloodthirsty Christians should be "some Christians" - a significant part of the movie is devoted to criticizing the Passion of Mel Gibson.

The movie is very entertaining and funny, and I hope your wife at least takes a peak.

Steven Carr

Do people really go by the back cover of a DVD as an accurate summary of a movie? Despite years of reading back covers and then watching the film?

Judging by the popularity of Mel Gibson's gorefest, and the bigness of that movie in Christian circles, the statement has some logic behind it.

luvluv

That's exactly the inference that the film director draws. If by "it has some logic behind it" you mean "it has a naked logical fallacy behind it" then I'm right there with you. If you mean anything else by your statement, then you'll love the movie.

The Passion of Jesus Christ is a specific Catholic teaching. They're taught to meditate on the suffering of Christ because this supposedly has a redemptive effect. I'm no Catholic, but Mel Gibson is, and he intended to make a film depicting this particular Catholic sacrament. Now Evangelicals focus a lot on the "blood of Jesus" but by this they generally mean something other than his literal earthly suffering. In fact, if you go into any Evangelical church (or any Catholic Church service for that matter) you'll hear very little detail about Jesus's physical suffering. That the filmmaker decided that Mel Gibson's obsession with a particular bit of Catholic theology can be extrapolated into a diagnosis of the actual mindset of the rank and file evangelical Christian is the height of bad filmmaking, bad journalism, and shoddy thinking. He suggested that since the Passion made more money than Jesus Christ Superstar and The Last Temptation of Christ, that therefore Christians are bloodthirsty maniacs. Does this sound like critical thinking to anybody?

At any rate, clearly the reason why The Passion as opposed to other Christian movies is not because it is so bloody but because it had, by far, the highest production values and widest theatrical release of any Jesus film EVER. If you think that Christians are just in love with the blood and gore and can't get enough of it, ask any Christian if they've seen it twice. I loved the movie and I frankly have no plans to watch it ever again, nor would I necessarily use the film to introduce a non-Christian to the religion. (In my opinion it's not an evangelical film at all, it's more like a meditative film for seasoned Christians).

At any rate, I think Aspirin's wife is right not to watch the film. Though, like Steven Carr, I've been mislead by some movie covers before, in this case it's spot on. The reasoning in the film doesn't get any better than that on the box cover, and that's unfortunate. And excuse me, but I don't buy that the movie is only supposed to provoke thought. Um... why not provoke thought by making a good movie?

luvluv

On the Jesus Myth, I have a couple of idle questions. Feel free to answer with a link or two to the relevant articles:

1) Do Jesus Mythers believe in Q, and if so, how does Q fit into their whole "silence" motif?

2) How exactly does the Jesus Myth scenario account for the specific moral teachings of Jesus in the synoptics? Specifically:

A) The emphasis on forgiveness: both God's of us and the necessity that we forgive others.
B) The portrayal of God as a loving, intimate father.
C) The pattern of teaching in parables.
D) A focused anti-clericalism motivated by a hatred for hypocrisy and an insistence that slavish obedience to the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit leads one away from God.
E) The kind of ethical solidarity found in the sermon on the mount, the good samaritan, and the parable of the sheep and the goats.

Are similar teachings and themes found in the mystery religions? Are there serious ethical teachings attached to any of the mystery religions that survive to present day?

3) Were the other dying and rising savior kings as bucolic as Jesus? Did they typically walk around as homeless and barefoot in the wilderness as Jesus did?

Again, feel free to just shoot me a link. I can take it.

Zeichman

Doherty addresses most of these points in his book. It's hardly an infallible work, but I certainly think more of the mythicist case than before I read it.

Eckz

I saw the movie but I haven't read much about this before. What's the typical Christian response to his arguments? Assuming they are accurate it seemed to deal a pretty devastating blow (with the whole 30 year gap, etc) to the idea that Jesus was real. I dunno, is there contradictory evidence he omitted?

Toto

Gibson is a Traditional Catholic, but the film was marketed to evangelicals, who voted with their dollars. And I don't think that Flemming's film supports the idea of "bloodthirsty maniacs" which are your words - but perhaps it does indicate an unhealthy obsession with suffering.

Most people who see it get something out of it, and I somehow doubt that you would have liked it any better if there had been better production values.

Flemming's personal story is part of the documentary. If you can relate to it, it helps. If you can't, that might get in the way.

Toto

Denial and mysticism.

Nope.

Toto

Doherty does, others don't. Q is a hypothetical document that does not have much to do with a crucified savior, and which can't be dated.

Most of those moral teachings can be found in contemporary Hellenistic or Jewish thought. There's nothing original there.

That was the typical modus operendi of Cynic sages. (But why do you think that Jesus was barefoot?)

www.jesuspuzzle.com

luvluv

Well, it would have to be before the gospels, right? Point being, if Q and (more damingly) layers of Q are allowed, then there was quite a bit of biographical information circulating about Jesus before Paul wrote the epistles. Or do you think that Q might post-date the epistles? I guess you'd have to think that (if you believe in Q and you're a mythicist).

Is this the typical response of the Christ Mythers? Do they have no response to why such distinctive ethical emphases and teaching M.O. evolved around Jesus while none evolved around others (did they)? What's their explanation for these teachings, if they have one?

This is one of the many places I fall off the mythicist wagon (not that I was ever in danger of taking a ride). They short-change Jesus's distinct ethical genius, and seem to just say "This stuff is old, anybody could have done it". Well, then why didn't anybody else do it? That's my totally uneducated two cents.