To: Campion
You raise a good point, namely, just what the bishop intended to say. I think this is a situation where the bishop wanted to a) deflect any suspicion that the movie is anti-Semitic by assuring people that the Gospels are not strict history in the modern sense and b) encourage Catholics to not spend too much attention debating the differences between the accounts of the Passion in the 4 Gospels and the version presented in Mel's movie. I am sure that, for the bishop (and I agree), there are more important things to debate than whether the Roman whipping cords held a nail or pig's knuckles, or whether Jesus carried the whole cross or just (just!!) the crosspiece.
147 posted on
02/25/2004 9:53:42 AM PST by
Remole
To: Remole
You raise a good point, namely, just what the bishop intended to say. I think this is a situation where the bishop wanted to a) deflect any suspicion that the movie is anti-Semitic by assuring people that the Gospels are not strict history in the modern sense and b) encourage Catholics to not spend too much attention debating the differences between the accounts of the Passion in the 4 Gospels and the version presented in Mel's movie. I am sure that, for the bishop (and I agree), there are more important things to debate than whether the Roman whipping cords held a nail or pig's knuckles, or whether Jesus carried the whole cross or just (just!!) the crosspiece.
Good post.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson