|
|
| jb |
I want to applaud his courage in coming out as a Catholic and stating exactly what Mel Gibson's agenda was in making "The Passion". |
|
|
| Nellcote |
Repeat after me...
It's a movie
It's a movie
You don't like it, don't watch it.
Get over it.
Just put in that Super Bowl Winning NE Patriots DVD
if you want sheer horror and terror.
That will scare the daylights out of any Phins fan!
I hope that Wannabe signs Randy Moss, then you will have
two million dollar running backs to help you loose.. |
|
|
| telecaster |
jb should "The Passion" be censored? |
|
|
| egon |
he's my hero as well, but only cos he's angelina jolie's father. |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
Nellcote wrote:
Repeat after me...
It's a movie
It's a movie
You don't like it, don't watch it.
Get over it.
Just put in that Super Bowl Winning NE Patriots DVD
if you want sheer horror and terror.
That will scare the daylights out of any Phins fan!
I hope that Wannabe signs Randy Moss, then you will have
two million dollar running backs to help you loose..
Yes Nellie, the fans down here are extremely upset by the lack of off season moves ...we seem to have no direction and no plan.
|
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
jb wrote:
Yes Nellie, the fans down here are extremely upset by the lack of off season moves ...we seem to have no direction and no plan.
Well, Miami could go after Parcells after Jerry and he have their inevitable falling out. I predict that Parcells will be on the market again after the end of next season. Just a feeling. I can't wait to see those fireworks. |
|
|
| jb |
John Voight has had some memorable performances in "Midnight Cowboy", "Deliverance", "The Champ", "Coming Home" and "Runaway Train". |
|
|
| lucasd4 |
quote:
jb wrote:
I want to applaud his courage in coming out as a Catholic and stating exactly what Mel Gibson's agenda was in making "The Passion".
Voight is an idiot...you're one too... |
|
|
| jb |
------------------------------------------------------------Yes; Awe, No; Fascism, Probably
The flogging Mel Gibson demands.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Friday, Feb. 27, 2004, at 3:21 PM PT
The gay movement in the United States—and the demand for civil unions and even for actual marriage—has had at least one good effect with which nobody can quarrel. The closeted homosexual is a sad figure from the past, and so is the homosexual who tries desperately to "marry" a heterosexual, thus increasing misery and psychic repression all round.
This may seem like an oblique way in which to approach Mel Gibson's ghastly movie The Passion. But it came back to me this week that an associate of his had once told me, in lacerating detail, that an evening with Mel was one long fiesta of boring but graphic jokes about anal sex. I've since had that confirmed by other sources. And, long before he emerged as the spear-carrier for the sort of Catholicism once preached by Gen. Franco and the persecutors of Dreyfus, Mel Gibson attained a brief notoriety for his loud and crude attacks on gays. Now he's become the proud producer of a movie that relies for its effect almost entirely on sadomasochistic male narcissism. The culture of blackshirt and brownshirt pseudomasculinity, as has often been pointed out, depended on some keen shared interests. Among them were massively repressed homoerotic fantasies, a camp interest in military uniforms, an obsession with flogging and a hatred of silky and effeminate Jews. Well, I mean to say, have you seen Mel's movie?
I think that it's a healthy sign for our society that so many Jews have decided to be calm and unoffended by the film, and that so many Christians say they don't feel any worse about Jews after having seen it. We have a social consensus where Jews feel more secure and Christians less insecure. Good. But this does not alter the fact that The Passion is anti-Semitic in intention and its director anti-Semitic by nature. Some people including myself think that Abe Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League are too easily prone to charge the sin of anti-Semitism. But if someone denies the Holocaust one day and makes a film accusing Jews of Christ-killing the next day, I have to say that if he's not anti-Jewish then he's certainly getting there.
Continue Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's important to scan the Reader's Digest interview with Mel Gibson. He was questioned by Peggy Noonan, who was almost as simperingly lenient in print as Diane Sawyer was on the small screen. Noonan asked him a question that he must have known was coming, and which he must have prepared for, and she asked him in effect to "make nice" and agree that the Holocaust actually had occurred. His answer was, to all effects and purposes, a cold and flat "no." A lot of people, he agreed, had died in the last war. No doubt many Jews were among the casualties. It's one of the most frigid and shrugging things I have ever read. You would not know from this response that the war was begun by a fascist ruling party that believed in a Jewish world conspiracy, and thus that all of those killed were in part victims of anti-Semitism. (Some of the more tribal ADL advocates might also bear this in mind.)
But then, you were not brought up by Mel Gibson's father, who has repeatedly and recently stated that there was a population explosion among European Jews in the years 1933-1945 and that the Holocaust story is mainly "fiction." Young Gibson, when asked about this by Diane Sawyer, told her not to press him (which she obediently did not). But when asked by Noonan, he replied by saying that "My father has never told me a lie." It's not fair to expect Mel to trash his father. But he could have said that the old man was a fine daddy, albeit with a few odd ideas of his own. It was his very decided choice, however, to say that his male parent was an unvarying truth-teller. Why pick on that formulation? It's unlikely that Gibson Sr. has made a secret of his viciously anti-Jewish views when talking to his son, who shares with him a fanatical attachment to the Latin Mass and a deep hostility to the "liberalism" of the present pope.
So let us not be euphemistic about what is staring us in the face. Last Wednesday, the Lovingway United Pentecostal Church in Denver posted a sign on its roadside marquee. It read "Jews Killed the Lord Jesus." This pigsty of a church has, I think you will agree, an unimprovable name. But its elders, or whatever they call themselves, can't have had time to see the movie, which only opened that same Ash Wednesday. Nor, I think it safe to say, had they chosen the slogan only on the spur of the moment. No: They had been thinking this for quite a long time and were emboldened to "come out" and say so under the cover of a piece of devotional cinematic pornography. Some of us saw this coming. In America, I hope and believe, the sinister effect will be blunted by generations of civilized co-existence. But think for a moment what will happen when Gibson reaps the residual and overseas profits from screenings of the film in Egypt and Syria, or in Eastern Europe, where things are a bit more raw. Who can believe that he did not anticipate, and intend, this result?
Apparently seeking to curry favor, Gibson announced a few weeks ago that he had cut the scene where a Jewish mob yells for the blood of Jesus to descend on the heads of its children (a scene that occurs in only one of the four contradictory Gospels). Gibson lied. The scene is still there, spoken in Aramaic. Only the English subtitle has been removed. Propagandists in other countries will be able to subtitle it any way they like. This is all of a piece with the general moral squalor of his project. Gibson's producer lied when he said that a pope Gibson despises had endorsed the film. He would not show the movie to anyone who might object in advance. He will not debate any of his critics, and he relies on star-stricken pulp interviewers to feed him soft questions. Now, as the dollars begin to flow from this front-loaded fruit-machine of cynical publicity, he is sobbing about the risks and sacrifices he has made for the Lord. A coward, a bully, a bigmouth, and a queer-basher. Yes, we have been here before. The word is fascism, in case you are wondering, and we don't have to sit through that movie again.
Related
[Edited by jb]
[Edited by jb] |
|
|
| polksalad69 |
What did Voight say? He's an actor, what's he got to say and why should we listen to him?
Chicago Sun-Times
March 5, 2004
'Passion' fails to nail key point
The lesson of Good Friday is that God suffers with us
Author: Andrew Greeley
Section: EDITORIAL
Page: 41
Article Text:
'The Passion of the Christ" is a celebration of the bloody suffering of Jesus, a fundamentalist interpretation by a man who rejects the Vatican Council. It is not, contrary to claims, a literal interpretation of St. John's Gospel but is based on the "revelations" of a 19th century mystic. It is a film about torture, legitimated because it is the torture of Jesus. "Passion" is a glorification of sado-masochism.
For most of the first millennium of Christian history, the church spread a veil of modest discretion over the physical suffering of Jesus. It respected the privacy of his final hours and celebrated the empty crucifix as a symbol of the resurrection of Jesus (an event that is noted only weakly and vaguely in Mel Gibson's conclusion). The Greek churches even to this day resist sensationalist presentations of the suffering of Jesus. However, in the Middle Ages, the Western church gradually put the corpus back on the cross, though it did not present Jesus as naked, as he in fact would have been. The cult of the physical suffering of Jesus became especially strong during the Renaissance. It was not always a completely healthy devotion as the cult of the flagellants demonstrated.
Crucifixion was a cruel form of execution. After the slave revolution of Sparticus, 30,000 slaves were crucified along the Apian Way. The death of Jesus was not unique in its cruelty, however horrible it may have been. Whether our modern methods of execution are any more humane might be an open question. It was typical of everything in the life of Jesus that he chose to be united in his death with the poor and the oppressed, a point Gibson seems to have missed.
Those religious conservatives who seem to delight in how much Jesus suffered are certainly correct that his sufferings were terrible. Those who say the sufferings were absolutely unique to him simply display their own ignorance of history.
Gibson showed his hand in his interview with Diane Sawyer when he said that because the gates of heaven were closed by the sin of our first parents, Jesus had to suffer to open them again. This metaphor, which my generation heard often in grammar school, is a poor adaptation of the teaching of St. Anselm, who proposed that the suffering of Jesus paid the blood price to satisfy God and free us from our sins. Anselm's theology is not Catholic faith. It has caused a lot of misunderstanding among Catholics who absorbed it in their youth.
One may wonder what kind of God it would be who would demand such a price from his beloved son. Is this the same kind of implacably forgiving God whom Jesus preached about in his life?
We all must suffer; we all must die. Death, no matter how brief or how protracted, is horrible. Do those who die after a prolonged battle with cancer die any less horribly than Jesus? What does his death say to all of us who must die? One will watch "The Passion of the Christ" in vain for any hint of an answer to that question.
The lesson of Good Friday, properly understood, is that God suffers with us. Like every good parent, he suffers when his children suffer. When Jesus hung on the cross, God (the person was the Second Person of the Trinity) made common cause with the Iraqi peasant shot in the back and tossed into the pit to be consumed by fire. God cannot prevent our sufferings, but he suffers with us.
Isn't God above all suffering? One can only reply that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures presents himself as suffering with his people. Good Friday is good precisely because on that day God identified himself with his people. "Christ," as Annie Dillard writes, "hangs on the cross, as it were, forever, always incarnate and always nailed."
That fundamental flaw that St. Paul describes as the struggle between what we want to do and what we actually do (and which St. Augustine dubbed "original sin") is our fear of our own mortality. We do those things that we know we shouldn't do because we are afraid of death. On Good Friday, God did not take away death, but he did absorb our God-forsakenness and promise that when it is time to die, he will die once again with us.
Copyright 2004 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
Record Number: 10132B1D6CF0E868 |
|
|
| jb |
Voight had the courage to appear on "Scarborough' country and suggest that Gibson's film was analagous to the films Hitler used to incite hatred towards the Jews. As a catholic, he was alarmed by the film's message and questioned Gibson's motives. |
|
|
| polksalad69 |
quote:
jb wrote:
Voight had the courage to appear on "Scarborough' country and suggest that Gibson's film was analagous to the films Hitler used to incite hatred towards the Jews. As a catholic, he was alarmed by the film's message and questioned Gibson's motives.
was there more than this?
quote:
JON VOIGHT, ACTOR: I was raised Catholic, and there are many theologians in the Catholic Church now that are speaking about this film in the way of pointing out that the Jews had no control over the Romans at this time and, therefore, there‘s a problem with the film. And so I‘m not so happy with what Mel Gibson has read into Gospels, and I think it‘s unfortunate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431316/
 |
|
|
| jb |
Yes...he used stronger language and suggested an anti-semitic message. |
|
|
| Joey |
" Yes...he used stronger language and suggested an anti-semitic message. "
Hannity drives me crazy over at FoxNews !
Jacky Colmes !
|
|
|
| polksalad69 |
quote:
jb wrote:
Yes...he used stronger language and suggested an anti-semitic message.
I saw something else where he said he supported Israel in re: to the movie. Oh well, gotta run... |
|
|
| Scottfree |
I bought John Voight's car.......Errr wait that was Costanza, nevermind..... (I think it was a Chrysler) |
|
|
| prism |
Jon Voight said he was "programmed" with Catholicism as a child and he witnessed many Jewish kids in his neighborhood being beaten up by Christian bullies. Angelina studies Zen, which is the most sensible philosophy. Mel Gibson is making a ton of money off his Christ merchandise which includes a $17 necklace of a spike like the one hammered into Christ's hand. Historians say Christ is a myth based on Krishna which Alexander the Great brought to Jerusalem in 325 BC. Coincidentally Angelina stars in Oliver Stone's upcoming film on Alexander. |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
Didn't Voight (or was it his daughter Angelina) covert to judaism awhile back ?
The Champ now there's a classic.
Little Ricky Schroder "Way to go champ!" |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
how boring....
|
|
|
| polksalad69 |
quote:
prism wrote:
Historians say Christ is a myth based on Krishna which Alexander the Great brought to Jerusalem in 325 BC. Coincidentally Angelina stars in Oliver Stone's upcoming film on Alexander.
Got some examples, books, historians to read? The historical Jesus is pretty popular.
Going to have to check this one out.
Author Strobel, Lee, 1952-
Title The case for Christ : a journalist's personal investigation of the evidence for Jesus
Pub.info. Grand Rapids, MI : Zondervan, c1998.
[Edited by polksalad69] |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
AWWW...you want hear JB making a fuss during any of the 200 annual portrayals of the Holocaust run by the jewish dominated American media...all of which seem to be overwhelmingly anti-german...it's as if the Germans can only walk in a goose-step manner and bark out harsh orders...I'm sure some of them walk normally and actually say please once in a while
[Edited by Fiji Joe] |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
By the way...who the hell is Polksalad and how did he/she get damn near 7,000 posts? |
|
|
| mac_daddy |
from the Hollywood Reporter...
After 'Passion,' no need for Gibson to work again
By Martin A. Grove
"Passion" power: Before Newmarket Films' mega-blockbuster launch of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," insiders were speculating that the controversial film might hurt Gibson's acting career.
Although some wondered if he'd ever work again, as it turns out the real question is whether Gibson will ever need to work again given "Passion's" divine profits. Not only has "Passion" managed to turn around what was a decidedly lackluster year at the boxoffice, it's also impacted on Hollywood in ways that are likely to alter how the film industry does business for years to come.
With about $214 million in hand through last weekend, there's no question "Passion," which Gibson made through his and Bruce Davey's Icon Productions, will gross north of $300 million in domestic theaters. In fact, for several reasons it seems quite likely to reach $350-400 million. To begin with, "Passion" should continue to benefit from favorable word of mouth, which has helped drive it at the boxoffice since it opened. The more people who see the film, the more people there will be out there who will be talking about it. There also is a strong curiosity factor that typically kicks in when people who originally had no interest in a movie -- whatever movie it might be -- suddenly realize that everyone else has seen it and is talking about it. No one wants to feel left out of conversations, whether they're at school or work or on the golf course, so at some point people get curious enough to find out for themselves what it's all about. Continuing media coverage of how well "Passion" is performing at the boxoffice can also be expected to boost interest in seeing it. Moreover, the calendar should also work in favor of "Passion" because with Palm Sunday on Apr. 4, Good Friday on Apr. 9 and Easter Sunday on Apr. 11 the picture will suddenly become more timely than ever to its core audience of Christians around the world.
If "Passion" were to generate $400 million domestically, that could translate into $100 million or more of profits to Gibson and Icon. The rough math that gets you to this number comes from calculating Newmarket's film rentals as being around 45 percent of that $400 million -- or about $180 million. Rentals, of course, vary by picture and by distributor and they also reflect how long a given film takes to generate its grosses. Distribution terms favor distributors earlier in the run and exhibitors later in the run.
So while Newmarket could wind up getting an even higher percentage of the gross as its rentals, let's be conservative here and use 45 percent as our number. From rentals of $180 million they'd have to recoup Gibson's production costs, which have been widely reported as $30 million. That's about $5 million more than the $25 million negative cost that was being reported before "Passion" opened, but let's say $30 million is what it turned out to be at the end of the day. That would leave $150 million.
Then there are distribution fees to be paid to Newmarket, which has done a spectacular job releasing the film. While we don't know for sure what percentage fee Newmarket is getting, various reports have put it at 10-12 percent. Using a conservative 10 percent here leaves about $135 million. And then there are Icon's marketing costs (prints and advertising) to be recouped. Here, too, no one's telling us exactly what was spent, but some accounts have put "Passion's" opening and pre-opening marketing budget at a relatively modest $15-20 million. If we use the high end of that number to repay Icon's marketing costs, we've got -- well, really, Mel's got -- $115 million.
Of course, the longer a film plays the more marketing costs it generates since it needs some level of advertising support. As the Easter holiday period approaches it's likely that Icon will need to spend more on television spots and print ads. If the film enjoys the long run it seems to be on track for, those marketing costs along with other overhead costs will keep adding up over time. So let's knock that $115 million down to a mere $100 million in profits to Gibson and/or Icon.
Needless to say, that's just the tip of the iceberg. If a film grosses $400 million domestically, it could easily do twice that internationally. It could, of course, even do more. "Titanic," for instance, did about $1 billion abroad compared to about $600 million in the U.S. and Canada. "Passion" is likely to do extremely well in parts of the world like Latin America and South America where it will benefit from having a very large core audience of Christians. It could wind up in those territories as the biggest blockbuster of all time. On the other hand, how it performs in Japan and other Asian territories remains to be seen. While there isn't a huge Christian audience base to draw from in the Far East, the curiosity factor combined with global media coverage of the film's mushrooming domestic success could give it strength.
If it winds up doing $800 million internationally, Icon would undoubtedly be looking at overages to be paid to it on the contracts it's done on a territory by territory basis around the world. Unlike a major studio worldwide deal in which losses in one territory cut into profits from other territories, Icon would benefit from having done specific deals with individual local distributors for each territory.
In the U.K., where "Passion" doesn't kick off until Mar. 26, it's likely to perform very well, driven again by the country's large core audience of Christians. In fact, in the U.K. the arrival of "Passion" is apparently being seen as a way to attract new parishioners. News reports Monday said four churches in England's southeastern county of Kent have block-booked some $37,000 worth of tickets that they plan to give away at no cost in an effort to add people to their congregations. Reuters quoted an official of one of those churches, Russ Hughes, the director of worship and prophecy at St. Luke's, as saying, "This is the greatest opportunity for the Church in the last 30 years and if we did not use it we may not get such an opportunity again."
In any event, Icon's international profits should be very considerable. If we're looking at $100 million in domestic profits, it's not unreasonable to figure $200-250 million (and possibly more) in international profits.
While "Passion" is still a long way away from its DVD and home video release, it's clear that home entertainment revenues will represent yet another major profits stream for Gibson and Icon. At this point, it's hard to calculate what those profits will be since we don't know when the DVD will be released, what bonus features it will have or how it will be priced. Nonetheless, the film clearly has a built-in audience that can be expected to want to own a copy of it. If we're looking at $400 million in domestic theatrical grosses, we could be looking at $400 million more in DVD and home video sales.
Distributors typically keep more dollars from home entertainment sales than they do from theatrical ticket sales. Icon and whatever home entertainment company winds up distributing "Passion" could end up with 60 to 70 percent of the gross from DVD and video sales. If that number is $400 million, that could generate somewhere around $260 million more for Gibson. That number would then be reduced by manufacturing, distribution and marketing costs associated with the DVD/home video release. It's a guess, but $60 million in costs probably isn't too far off base.
And that, by the way, isn't the end of the line. There are, of course, revenue streams from the film's soundtrack album and also from related merchandising deals that could be done in the future, perhaps as tie-ins with church groups worldwide. Moreover, because "Passion" is, in Hollywood genre terms, a period piece costume drama, it will never become dated. There's no reason it can't be re-released theatrically every year for decades to come. Gibson's film could become permanently linked with how Christians observe the Easter season.
While churches in the U.K. see a benefit from "Passion" in terms of bringing in new parishioners, Hollywood distributors see the film helping their business by perhaps reawakening interest in movies in people who aren't regular moviegoers. "People who haven't been to theaters for ages are coming to this movie," one distributor told me Sunday morning as we focused on boxoffice estimates. "It's bringing people in to see new stadium theaters they haven't seen before. The experience (of moviegoing) has changed over the last five to 10 years. No more flat floor theaters. No more looking into the back of the head of the guy in front of you. This is a whole new experience."
His message, appropriately enough considering "Passion's" subject, was one of hope. It's widely believed that Gibson's initial audience for "Passion" was largely people who usually don't go to see films. This core audience, driven by Christian evangelical leaders, made seeing "Passion" their top priority. The fervor they exhibited for seeing it as early as possible in its run brings to mind the same frenzy that accompanies the opening of new "Star Wars" episodes or the latest comic book driven summer popcorn movies. Just as Hollywood's blockbusters get that way by achieving a broader audience once the core audience gets things off to a sizzling start, Newmarket managed to do the same with "Passion." After the Christian Right immediately put it on the blockbuster charts, "Passion" began to attract whoever else was left.
This was not what anyone anticipated, especially not the distributors who turned Gibson down when he was trying to put a domestic deal together for the film. While no one is saying precisely who those distributors were, they clearly know who they are and they're likely to be kicking themselves for a long time to come. It's hard to fault them, of course, because nothing about this film should have convinced them to do anything but try to distance themselves from the controversy it was generating from the get-go.
They had to have had in mind the TV news images of angry pickets protesting in front of then-MCA chairman Lew Wasserman's home when Universal Pictures released Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" in 1988. To the global media moguls who rule Hollywood today, the upside-downside considerations here were clearly weighted in favor of protecting the downside from the effects of religious controversy when there was apparently so little upside potential at the boxoffice. After all, religious theme films aren't known -- correction, weren't known -- for doing big business.
Now it's quite another ballgame. With an upside as mouthwatering as the one Gibson's enjoying from "Passion," Hollywood isn't likely to stay on the sidelines for long. As literary material goes, the Bible is attractive to Hollywood because not only does it feature well developed storylines and colorful characters, but it's a brand name book that's in the public domain. Studios looking to develop franchises could undoubtedly get a few good ones going here. While it's true that many of the Bible's most familiar stories have been mined by Hollywood in the past, producers who now address the same material the way Gibson's done in his R rated "Passion" could find themselves satisfying the moviegoing appetite of this newly emerging audience.
Martin Grove is seen Mondays at 9:30 a.m., PT on CNN FN's "The Biz" and is heard weekdays at 1:55 p.m. on KNX 1070 AM in Los Angeles
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/grove_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000458215 |
|
|
| polksalad69 |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
By the way...who the hell is Polksalad and how did he/she get damn near 7,000 posts?
He got nearly 7000 posts on another novogate board before discovering dis one.
Mr. JoeBuck, Jon Voight?
http://community.webshots.com/photo/116886752/117389379PhCAPj
[Edited by polksalad69] |
|
|
| prism |
Interesting books: THE CHRIST CONSPIRACY by Acharya, THE JESUS MYSTERIES by Timothy Freke, THE BOOK YOUR CHURCH DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ by Leedom, THE JESUS PUZZLE.
Go to amazon.com and exlore. I've been studying ancient history for years and in all my classes I've heard that Jesus isn't considered a historical figure but rather a compilation of previous myths. Jesus was originally meant as a religious metaphor meant to be taken symbolically. The writers of the Bible took many things from Hindu scriptures as well as from Egyptian and Greek myths. Krishna was born of a virgin under a star in a manger surrounded by shepherds, according to scriptures written 4000 years ago. Krishna performed miracles, was crucified to a tree by an arrow, was resurrected as son of God, etc. Do an internet search: Jesus + Attis + Krishna + Mithra + Osiris (or any mix and match combination). |
|
|
| JumpinJackFlash |
For Christ Sakes, not another God Damn religious thread.
"You'll never make a saint of me." |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
quote:
Nellcote wrote:
Repeat after me...
It's a movie
It's a movie
You don't like it, don't watch it.
Get over it.
I'm with Nellcote. It's just a fucking film Josh! I actually think it looks great and I can't wait to see it! If you don't like it, don't go and see it. Let the rest of us make our own minds up. I couldn't care less about who this film offends or what Mel Gibson’s agenda for making it was. I just want to be entertained.
Alex |
|
|
| polksalad69 |
quote:
prism wrote:
Interesting books: THE CHRIST CONSPIRACY by Acharya, THE JESUS MYSTERIES by Timothy Freke, THE BOOK YOUR CHURCH DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ by Leedom, THE JESUS PUZZLE.
Go to amazon.com and exlore. I've been studying ancient history for years and in all my classes I've heard that Jesus isn't considered a historical figure but rather a compilation of previous myths. Jesus was originally meant as a religious metaphor meant to be taken symbolically. The writers of the Bible took many things from Hindu scriptures as well as from Egyptian and Greek myths. Krishna was born of a virgin under a star in a manger surrounded by shepherds, according to scriptures written 4000 years ago. Krishna performed miracles, was crucified to a tree by an arrow, was resurrected as son of God, etc. Do an internet search: Jesus + Attis + Krishna + Mithra + Osiris (or any mix and match combination).
Thanks, myths and rituals (Joseph Campbell) is what I was taught, but I'm beginning to wonder after some of the stuff I've read these days. Archealogy seems to back up the New Testemant, or that's the new thought.
Ok, sorry, enough relegion. |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:
I'm with Nellcote. It's just a fucking film Josh! I actually think it looks great and I can't wait to see it! If you don't like it, don't go and see it. Let the rest of us make our own minds up. I couldn't care less about who this film offends or what Mel Gibson’s agenda for making it was. I just want to be entertained.
Alex
How can you make such an ignorant statement? You don't care who it offends? Very immature. |
|
|
| polksalad69 |
JFK was just a film too. |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]
