Ventura on Gibson's erroneous "Passion"

[villager]

from Michael Ventura's latest "Letters at 3 a.m.:"

<snip>

Where almost all historians agree that the Gospels are not only wrong but intentionally wrong is in their treatment of Romans in general and of Pilate especially. Every Roman with a speaking part comes off well in the Gospels, and Pilate is exonerated of ordering Jesus' execution. Gibson goes even further: The Temple priests and the Jewish crowd laugh at Pilate, and Pilate fears the priests will start a rebellion. This is nonsense. And this is why:

1) As first-century accounts prove, the Temple priests were under Pilate's direct orders. In fact, Judea's Roman governors even kept possession of the priests' most sacred vestments, without which Temple rituals could not be performed; the priests were granted those vestments when needed – if they behaved. 2) Romans crucified many thousands of Jews; no act or appearance of rebellion went unpunished. 3) When in 66-70CE the Jewish people finally revolted against both Rome and their own exploitative aristocracy, it was the Temple priests who tried to convince them not to – for which the priests were killed, by their own people. 4) Many historical sources of the era reveal Pilate to be an especially tough and feared governor – no crowd could afford to laugh at him. He'd executed many for less. In fact, Pilate was so brutal that even the emperor got sick of his ways and recalled him, accusing him of excessive violence. 5) The Gospel writers lived in a Roman world that was beginning to systematically persecute Christians; they intentionally placated the Romans, and were certainly not going to put anything in writing that could get them, or their converts, crucified. They had to blame somebody, so they blamed the Temple hierarchy. But Jesus was convicted of a political crime, as the sign on his cross said: claiming to be "king of the Jews." If he is king, then Herod and Rome are not. That's what they killed people for: questioning their authority.

Before Jesus ever reached Jerusalem he told his followers, "Anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me," (Matthew 10:38, NIV). In a world of everyday Roman crucifixion, everyone understood his metaphor: He was emphasizing the great risks that he and his people were taking. In that sense, he carried his cross with incredible courage. But that was a cross made of faith, not of wood. A cross of wood you carry, if you can, for a few steps; a cross of faith you carry all your life. In emphasizing the wood over the faith, The Passion of the Christ simply, and at great expense, misses the point. And ignores the Gospels.

more at:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2004-03-05/cols_ventura.html

[toddzilla]

1. and they call us athiests crazy...

:silly:

[Neoplatonist]

2. You're not crazy...

...you're just a skeptic. Every opposite has an opposite, and no opposite can admit and then destroy its opposite. Therefore atheism will never destroy God.

[papau]

9. Nope- I respect all religions - and Michael Ventura's note is an excellent

summary of the historical record.

As a matter of faith many chose to go by the actual words in the Bible, so I do not see why he is that upset.

Except Gibson does sell the PASSION as history, not history via faith. Most likely to Gibson there is no difference.

But Michael Ventura's comments are spot on if you are discussing history.

[H2O Man]

3. You really can't

tell anyone else that their beliefs are wrong, and that yours' are right, without sounding very similar to the right-wingers. You may also risk losing credibility with statements about what "almost all historians agree" upon, at least with anyone who has the capacity to read. Religion at its best is an individual thing. It may be that we can never actually understand other peoples' belief systems. But we can still have respect for them. Perhaps that is more important.

[villager]

4. except that this film isn't being marketed as a "belief,"

but rather as a "historically accurate" portrayal of what happened. Thus, it leaves itself opens -- invites -- criticism on those grounds...

[H2O Man]

5. Your point is clever

but it can never be considered as a step towards reconciliation. I would venture that the fact that any movie about Jesus is open to critism does not compell either you or I to criticize .... unless our goal is to create divisions. Again, statements such as "most historians agree" represent a short-cut to logic and truth. And, no matter how WRONG that YOU may feel another human being's beliefs are, you have the choice to be respectful or disrespectful. I would suggest that there are millions of views on Jesus. In very large part, these views are based upon faith. Our faiths will always differ. However, it IS POSSIBLE to have people from various beliefs get along. It requires respect for different views. I hope that people on here will take a giant step forward, and stop jumping at the chance to criticize other peoples' religious beliefs.

[KC21304]

6. I agree with you. Until someone else tries to insert their

religious beliefs into someone else's life, as in gay rights, abortion, prayer in public schools etc. Otherwise I have no problem with what anyone else believes.

[H2O Man]

8. Yes, of course!

We agree on that. I do not advocate allowing other people to infringe on others' lifestyles, based upon religious, political, or social "beliefs." Let me give you an example: I do not believe that using abortion as a form of birth control is good. My beliefs are strong enough that I feel no need to impose them on others. I hope that at some point, we can work together as communities to help make sure that people who do not want to have a baby do not become pregnant. It's a goal I share with many of my best friends who feel very differently about abortion. We respect opinions very different than our own. If we were to criticize each other, we could not work towards common ground. And that may be the best hope for our society: to reach a common ground where there is respect for diversity.

[villager]

10. straw horse, I think...

you're attacking me for being against "reconciliation." I hold no such position. I'm all for each faith/religion (fyi, I'm a Sunday school teacher) copping to the fact they only have a *piece* of the puzzle, and the Great Mystery is more than any one belief system can successfully articulate.

But why are you letting Gibson -- who has made a divisive film, and believes that everyone not in his small sect of reactionary Catholicism is going to hell -- off the hook?

And Ventura's statemment -- not mine -- that "most historians agree" is just columnist's shorthand for saying "the most widely agreed upon conclusion based on the historical evidence is," etc.

[H2O Man]

14. I am not trying to attack you.

I want to say that I am sorry if I'm coming across that way. My point is NOT that you as an individual are against reconciliation .... rather, that a tactic that you, and I, and many people on here goes in the opposite direction of reconciliation .... we react, rather than respond.
As far as letting Mel "off the hook" goes, I'm not in favor of putting people on the hook. It may well be that Mel has put himself on the hook, either by way of the film, or by his outspoken and judgemental opinions. Yet, if we see human history in terms of God's mountain, and all paths leading towards the top, there must come a point where our view allows us the clarity to see the foolishness of throwing stones at others on different paths, or underneath us on the trail we are on.
Teaching Sunday school can be a good thing. But --something that little children are not mature enough to understand -- is the fact that many of the prophet Jesus' harshest teachings were NOT aimed at the immature people prone to mistaking a movie for the gospel truth. Rather, they are intended for the mature spirits among us, to remind us not to put the Mels of the world on any hooks, and more -- to help them down when they put themselves on one!
Again, I am sorry, and do not wish to offend you as a person.

[villager]

18. well, that's it, you see...

...we're helping Mel down of his self-created hook!

;)

[bpilgrim]

12. ignore religion doctrine

when talking about acurate portrails of it in film... can you?

i didn't read it as an attack on ANYONES personal belifes just a films portrayal of DOCTRINE/SCRIPTURE.

hey, mel said it was based on an ACCURATE portrayal of gospel so what else is anyone suposed to use as a standard to measure against?

vodo? their OWN personal, private, varied opinion?

:shrug:

peace

[villager]

13. right...

...it's not even an accurate rendition of what's in the gospels. Mel hasn't copped to that. It would make a discussion of his wildly subjective film that much more honest...

[H2O Man]

15. one possibility:

you might avoid using ANY "standard to measure against" another person's belief system. There were a lot of people who didn't like the movie Jesus Christ SuperStar, or The Last Temptation of Christ. My response to them was to exercise their right not to watch it. They can disagree with these movies. But to attack the motives or accuracy of the films is not going to help build respect for diversity. And guess what? The gospels were not written with the intent of being taken as a literal historic record. Religious experience is personal, private, and varied. Men like Jesus, Gandhi, and King recognized this. Take that a step farther, and you will understand THAT is EXACTLY why they did not assault other peoples' beliefs! Confront injustice? Yes! Violence? Yes! Theft by the powerful against the weak? Yes! But not attacks on other's sincere beliefs, no matter how immature they may have seemed.(I enjoy this discussion, and am not trying to insult you. I trust you feel the same.)

[patricia92243]

7. Who is Ventura for in the election?

[villager]

11. see this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=33821

[rfkrocks]

16. Yawn

First of all it is not surprising that the Gospels dance around the romans-they were writing in a time where the Jewish nation was just stomped out by the romans in the sack of Titus in 70ad. The gospel writers were writing a public faith document trying to allow its public use so they obscured the romans because the romans were the Nazis/evil empire of the 1st century ad. They were trying to escape the imperial censors. What they really said about Pilate speaks volumes-first it was a roman emperor in 317ad Nicene creed who put in it that Christ was "crucified under Pontius Pilate". Also the whole "washing of one's hands" bit is the biggest damn of all. If you are in government as a right thinking person-you can't just wash your hands of your responsibility-perhaps Bush and Co can learn a real lesson from the Gospels on this point-e.g., see Iraq

[villager]

17. good points, but why...

...yawn?

[rfkrocks]

19. No offense to you

I think it is an interesting post and worth the read-I am tired of having Mel Gibson and all the other right wingers depict Christianity instead of Christ! I am a Christian and I feel that I constantly have to fend off attacks from people who are think these right wingers speak for Christ-But we liberal Christians do not have the microphone (nor do we want it-the best summary is Jesus Love your neighbor and God and Paul "Do justice love mercy walk humbly with your God") Where is the humble part of the right? where is the love? So-the yawn should be more frustration-for that I apologize-I would however like to go into religious frenzy on the first Tuesday in Nov. when Damien leaves the White House!

[villager]

20. wasn't offended,

just trying to match up the headline with your remarks. Thanks for the elucidation! And may there be much to have an ecstatic frenzy over come November!