How far did the Gibson apple fall from the tree?

[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.