Posted on 04/14/2005 7:15:40 PM PDT by Destro
Just because these accounts were not directly from the Gospel doesn't mean that the events didn't happen. How do you know Anne-Catherine Emerich's visions were not accurate?
How do you know these are accurate accounts? Unless you were there, you have no way of knowing?
I bet my library is bigger than yours...and, I have a book written by Ann-Catherine Emerich. According to my library, the accounts depicted in The Passion of the Christ are accurate.
You were there?
Basing history on "channeling" makes it voodoo history.
It may be a mater of faith to you, but your faith is not fact.
I am there every time I read the New Testament in the original Koine Greek. I am there every time I look at a Roman coin that Pilate designed for Judea written in Greek - not Hebrew nor in Latin. Enjoy the link I provided to the coins. Saying if I was there is the most ignorant thig a person can write as a way to support their case - so much scholarship and original written sources exist (like the scene from Acts that I provided) that to claim ignorance over the use of Greek or Latin in the Holy Land is absurd.
Some reading for you @ # 23
You don't know that. Prove that her visions were not given to her by Our Lord. You can't. The best you can say is that you do not accept them to be authentic.
Moses based what he wrote, the Ten Commandments, on his "channeling" the knowledge. He made it up.
neither is some book you pull off your shelf in your library.
There is nothing in the NT about the Temple Guards taking part in the beating of Jesus. More anti-Semitism to add to all the rest.
Not the same thing - The account of Moses was passed down through the generations presumebly by eye witness accounts - Ann-Catherine Emerich's vision came out of the blue (if you will). She had to go BACK in time to see what no one ever claimed they saw before - how can you possibly compare the two?
This is ridiculous. He does a lot more than this. He's painting himself as some kind of contemplative, cut off from the real world.
I proved it through the New Testament and pictures of coins from Judea at the time of Pilate. See the above links. What do you have to prove your case? (Whatever that case is - I don't know what you are defending? The OVER use of Latin or the claim that Ann-Catherine Emerich's vision is indeed how Christ spent his last hours - even if it contradicts the New Testament accounts.
>> If he does it, it's for the money. He did not respect JPII. <<
Let's see what spin he reads JP's work through. I read JP2 as having reigned in the horrific post-concillar abuses of Paul6, and thereby setting the stage for the return of authentic worship (although universal Tridentine worship seems unlikely). Remember that he who tells history shapes the future.
OK, after the bit about Latin:
Do you know any of those points to be historical inaccuracies? The same could be said for any wording which was not contained in the scriptures. They are expressions of Mel's theology, and so his artistic lisence on details which are lost to history. They do not mean that his histories are bad; merely that they are "historical drama," rather than documentary.
As for the Latin, his use of it was based on his conclusion of conflicting historical data. I recognize you come to a different conclusion, but you must understand that his use of Latin did not come from ignorance of the fact that Greek was a Lingua Franca in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Liek I said - I don't mind Mel making a movie based on his theology - but the posters here were defending it on points of historical accuracy and scriptural accuracy. They were upset I challenged the movie's accuracy in terms of history and scripture. In those areas I found the movie wanting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.