Blogcritics: Comments on Monitoring Mel

Comment by sophie

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:45:42 EST

What a wonderful protrayal of Jesus Christ. I will never look at the cross the same way. Thank you Jesus

Comment by Doug

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:17:02 EST

Dawn, your anger over one Catholic priest doesn't justify stereotyping an entire denomination...and YES I will DARE to tell you about the Catholic Church of today, since that is what I see, hear and experience every day. Based on your logic (or lack thereof)I could classify ALL Lutherans as bitter, Catholic hating, and ignorant of other religous denominations. However I know many Lutherans (Baptists, Pentecostals...etc) who don't share your views. Also I personally strive not to stereotype...but that's just me.

Comment by BB

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:04:58 EST

Your right Shark in the sense that after 2,000 years it is difficult to find an original manuscript that old. Nevertheless scholars more educated than we believe in the accuracy and harmony of scripture. All of the points you brought up I have heard before (BB's eyes roll back in his skull as he summons just enough mental strength to hope that an "All in the Family" rerun is on about now - nudge, nudge, wink, wink :-) The point is there are always opinions for and against, and again I reiterate - it all comes down to faith. So who are you gonna believe? Slog that dead horse or eternal life?

Comment by Dawn

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:00:27 EST

"The Catholics recognize any baptism in any Christian denomination as valid. " That is a huge load of horseshit. I wasn't allowed to be a speaker at my brother-in-law's wedding because I wasn't a properly "baptized" Christian (or in their minds, Catholic). I was basically told my kind (Jew converted to Lutheran) weren't welcome. They basically had to sneak me into the church to watch the ceremony. Don't you DARE tell me about the enlightened fucking Catholic Church of today. Oh, and that glorious union ended in an annullment in less than a year. So much for the sanctity of marriage. Also, the priest who said I wasn't invited to participate - WAS OVERTLY GAY and no one was buying his act. What a fucking jackhole that guy was - a good match for hell, not heaven if you ask me.

Comment by Michael Croft

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:55:41 EST

Eric, Yes, that's definitely information that is out there, but as Shark points out, we don't have a contemporary version of Josephus's writings. No criticism of The Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School is implied, but he appears to be using a source that many of his peers in the more traditional history and archaeology departments consider problematic. However, it would be worth asking him if he thinks that "Antiquities of the Jews" is proof or if he's got reservations. I would expect that he clearly differentiates between what he believes and what he considers proven. For what it's worth, I think the historicity of Jesus ends up being similar to 'creation' or 'the existence of God.' There's no irrefutable evidence to support or refute it, but the indirect evidence is compelling to some people and not so to others. However, as we've all been told, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Comment by Doug

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:54:58 EST

"Catholics are defined by dogmatism. The rest of the Christians in the world typically just want to get along, but as I have learned in my Lutheran church, there is a HUGE difference in the way Catholics feel about God and the way the rest of Christians feel about God." Dawn, Nothing like a little Catholic bashing to make you feel better. Having been a Catholic, lapsed and then come back to Catholicism I can tell you that you are dead wrong. As MD points out there are good and not so good people in every denomination. Yes the Catholic church for years (centuries) used to subscribe to a "our way or the highway" idea. However, that has not been the case for decades. Used to be that if you belonged to denomination outside of Catholicism and wanted to convert you had to be re-baptised in the Catholic church...no more. The Catholics recognize any baptism in any Christian denomination as valid. Also the Pope has been preaching about reaching out and including all Christians for decades. Now, not everyone agrees with that message (witness the traditionalist movement and Opus Dei)but it is still the "official" position of the Church. Mike, you are freakin' hilarious. I laughed out loud reading your entries.

Comment by Shark

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:00:50 EST

I don't want to be a dead [possibly divine] horse, but here's my take after 30 years of serious study: * Jesus was probably was a historic person; it's what he said and did that are in question. (See 'The Jesus Seminar' [Crosslin et al] for a great analysis) * the only 'real' [reliable?] accounts of JC are the synoptic gospels, and even they contradict each other in MANY cases. (Again, it's like using "The Night Before Christmas" to prove the existence of Santa Claus.) * messiahs were a dime a dozen during the Roman occupation; most hoped for a 'political/rebel' leader, although the Jewish religion (under that occupation) was pretty corrupt by then, so a yearning for new twist to Judaism wasn't so surprising (John the B lost his head over such hopes/fears) * Book of Mark is probably the closest we'll ever get to a 'first-hand' testimony; IMO, you can throw out the others as later marketing and propaganda. * Mark (the oldest book of the four) would would be more valuable if it weren't for those pesky additions at the end. (ie, the Resurrection) * Faith ain't called that for no reason.

Comment by mike

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:50:46 EST

I heard the Apostles were all gay.

Comment by Shark

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:49:21 EST

just for the record: Josephus' mention of JC is VERY problematic. The oldest extant MS are from the 10th-11th centuries. Most versions, especially those that explicitly mention JC as 'messiah' are VERY suspect, ie. possibly contain much later Christian tampering / reworking to fit the contemporary views of Christians, ie editing for propaganda. Kinda like those final verses of Mark. [wink-wink to BB] PS: Josephus was first publised in 93 CE.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:14:39 EST

From the Frontline website for their From Jesus to Christ series: "The problem in understanding Jesus as a historian begins with the fact that we have rather limited sources for reconstructing his life. Those sources are primarily the gospel traditions that we have in the New Testament, some apocryphal materials from the early Christian tradition, and some sources external to the New Testament. Those sources external to the New Testament are particularly valuable because they're not directly statements of faith, the way the New Testament materials are. Chief among those external sources is Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote at the end of the first century and who in book 18 of his "Antiquities of the Jews," has a small passage about Jesus. He also reports about John the Baptist, and about James, the brother of Jesus. And those passages constitute the first external testimonies to the existence of Jesus by someone who was not a follower. They may have been tampered with in the transmission, but at the core there probably is a reliable historical account by Josephus of the existence of Jesus."

Comment by Michael Croft

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:05:50 EST

Eric, Actually, while most historians don't bring it up, there are NO contemporary sources outside of the Christian religion that assert or imply that there was a historical person named Jesus. As a historian by training, it's mostly a non-issue from a historical point of view. My personal guess is that there was a so-named person, but Al's view is not unreasonable. The closest that historians can come is recent archaeological evidence that there was a high priest named Joseph Caiaphas. Religioustolerance.org has a page on historical evidence relating to Christianity.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:16:00 EST

Al, I don't believe many serious scholars doubt the existence of Jesus the person, too many historical references. I believe the area of dispute is his divinity.

Comment by BB

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:43:06 EST

MD I enjoy a good conspiracy as much as anyone. Thanks for the entertainment and reminding me of the scripture 1Co 3:1 to 3:23, Acts 3:15 and 1Th 2:15. Perhaps you will indulge me and explain what it means? BTW, what Seminary did you attend?

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:07:26 EST

Dawn, some of the most heartfelt work of feeding, clothing and housing people in the Third World has been done by Catholics. True, the conservative as Hell Vatican frowns on liberation theology, but what's new about the Church opposing anything that is truly progressive? So, there are good Catholics. But, the conservative mainstream is stronger (and usually on the wrong side of any social issue, or Johny Come Latelies) and the reactionaries, represented by Opus Dei and the traditionalists, are completely wrongheaded. Something else you will not hear from those people absent gobbledygook, though they believe it: There are no Protestestants. That's right. Since the Reformation was a huge mistake, there are really no Protestants. The Catholic reactionaries' vision is to bring the breakaways back into the flock. That is why they are really getting a kick out of working with the Christian Right in regard to "The Passion." It allows the traditionalists, OD, and the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson sorts to be openly on the same page. I said before, there is more to this than the pabulum BB is serving up A lot more.

Comment by BB

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:03:18 EST

Ok then.. for the record Dawn, Mike nor Al share any culpability with the rest of us sinners.

Comment by Al Barger

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:24:42 EST

Let me take this opportunity to deny ANY personal responsibility for the death of this fictional character. I, Al Barger, did NOT crucify Jesus- nor anyone else. I am innocent in the death of anyone. Thank you. You may now return to your previous hand wringing.

Comment by BB

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:19:12 EST

Basic Christianity 101: Dawn, surely you understand that He died for the sins of all mankind - which means that goes for ALL of us (with the exception of Mike above ;-). Therefore it goes without saying that WE (mankind) crucified him.

Comment by Dawn

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:21:35 EST

I sure as hell didn't crucify him either. I can guarantee that if I lived during the time of Jesus, you could have called me Mary - I'd have been the one washing his feet in a most subservient way. I love Jesus, I just don't want to see people in power pervert his word for their hateful not-so-hidden agenda.

Comment by BB

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:21:08 EST

No offense meant pal. That was a quote from Mel Gibson.

Comment by mike

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:42:45 EST

I didn't crucify him, pal. Don't lay that one on me.

Comment by BB

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:50:27 EST

Dawn I'm flabbergasted that you would even think me a Catholic. Actually I'm probably more anti-religion than most on Blogcritics. I am so anti-Catholicism but I try to not fall into the trap of religion bashing. When we do that we fall into the false notion that we are somehow better, for when we judge we elevate ourselves at the expense of others. All that I am saying about the Passion movie is what Mel Gibson has said. The movie has a spiritual message. It is extremely violent in order to shock us into the reality of Christ's sacrifice for all of us. And most importantly - we are ALL culpable. NOT just the Jews. NOT just the Romans - but it is ALL of us who crucified Him.

Comment by Chris Kent

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:59:21 EST

I'm sorry, but Don Meredith vs. Bart Starr on the frozen tundra is far more interesting than a race between the Pope and the Nation of Islam.....

Comment by mike

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:53:34 EST

Yes, not since the 1967 Green Bay Packers-Dallas Cowboys championship game have two contenders been so evenly matched. Although perhaps they'll join forces. I remember Cardinal O'Connor of New York expressing sympathy for Khomeni's jihad against Salmon Rushdie.

Comment by Shark

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:48:20 EST

You're not a real religion unless you've slaughtered thousands of innocents and built grotesque palaces while your worshippers starved. Then the Pope better not look over his shoulder: Islam is on his heels.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:18:44 EST

That would pretty well define the anti-Catholic position.