Skip to comments.Christian outrage as Basic Instinct dir plans film of Jesus being child of Roman who raped Mary
Posted on 06/27/2012 4:16:57 PM PDT by NYer
The script has not even been written yet, but a film disputing the immaculate conception of Jesus is already causing controversy.
Paul Verhoeven, who worked on the 1992 film Basic Instinct, will direct the film which will suggest that Jesus is not the son of God and instead he was conceived after his mother Mary was raped by a Roman soldier.
The film will be based on Verhoeven's 2010 book, Jesus of Nazareth, which discounts the events commonly attributed to the life of Christ.
Academy Award-winning Pulp Fiction co-writer Roger Avary is reported to be adapting the book into a screenplay.
The news has sparked accusations that the filmmaker is launching an attack on Christianity.
'Hollywood isn't anti-Christian, we are constantly told,' Dan Gainor of the Culture and Media Institute told RadarOnline.
'Yet the evidence keeps piling up that it is precisely that way.'
'This isn't accidental. Christians and Christian faith have been under decades of attack by hedonist Hollywood that is desperate to rationalize a culture of immorality,' claimed Mr Gainor.
The project has only been announced this month and the cast has not been revealed so a representative for Verhoeven told RadarOnline that any reaction is premature.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Courage would be filming the “Life of Mohammed” with Aisha played by a kindergartener and showing at least implicitly her life. Picking on Christians is a safe, trite move that has been overdone to the point that it’s probably considered boring.
And for his next film, Paul Verhoeven, will do a film on Mohammed’s home life. That would really establish him as a courageous and iconoclast movie director.
Can’t wait to see the true story of Mohammed the pedophile.
The “extreme violence” happened to be very real. Christ was scourged.....violently, by two Roman soldiers.....one more vicious than the other. He was punished under Roman law, not Jewish law (which limited the number of lashes to 39). He was whipped over his entire body except for His face, the palms of his hands, and the soles of his feet. Each soldier wielded a Roman flagrum; short wooden handle, three leather thongs, terminating in tortilla (”tor-CHILL-a”); dumbbell-shaped pieces of sharp metal. Every lash....was actually three lashes in one.
The truly amazing thing is that He survived at all. Even Pilate was aghast at the damage done to Him during the scourging, even though He was condemned to crucifixion.
Crucifixion was horrific; large, long nails driven through the wrists (forget the palms; the weight of the body would cause the nails to tear through and the body would fall). This provided “structural” support.....but also severed the radial nerve.
This does two things: one, it causes excruciating pain. Second, it causes the thumbs to fold inward over the palm. That has a real significance, but on a wholly different topic.
Yes, it was damned violent. He didn’t have to do it, He didn’t have to go through it.....but He did. He more than took a bullet for us; at least that would have been quick.
If I ever, ever thought about questioning my theology, I guarantee you it won’t be driven by the musings of the creators of “Basic Instinct” and “Pulp Fiction”, for God’s sake. Some people just need to get over themselves and then STFU.
I am a Christian and I am not outraged, I find these ridiculous claims to just be pathetic. This is simply another in a long line of wild eyed, irrational, and vile blasphemies hurled at Christianity that only gives Christianity more credibility. Truth is Truth, and no amount of books, movies, paintings etc will ever change that. But that doesn’t stop the little demons from trying.
Sorry Satan, you lost, get over it already.
Anyone have that graphic of Outrage Boy? Oh, wait a minute...
This will be a successful as all the other anti-Christ movies.
Passion of the Christ - was not even as violent as what happened to Christ during His torture.
Can't these no talent Hollywierd liberals do anything original?
As other posters have said, a life of Mohamed, now THAT would take some guts to do.
The Immaculate conception applys to Mary being born free of original sin and not to Jesus.
The "virgin birth" is another matter. -tom
... has nothingto do with this.
Stupid Daily Mail writer can't even get the basic terminology right in the first sentence.
that claim goes back about 1900 years ( I believe that one part of the Talmud commentary on Jesus mentions this as one explanation for the Christian claim of virgin birth).
On the other hand, we need to point out that this also was the theory of Hitler: That Jesus wasn’t Jewish because he had an Aryan father.
So he’s pushing the Nazi version of Jesus’ birth...
Verhoeffen - ultimate loser.
Actually it’s pretty cliche.
Someone ought to tell him to grow some balls and make a two hour movie ripping mad mo up and down the block. I’d pay to see that.
So why not go for the Savior of Mankind too...
Yawn. Hollywood comes out with one the these Christian mocking movies every 10 years or so. They almost always bomb at the box office and are forgotten posthaste.
Ping to #12 and #14.
Just as I suspected. They have no sources or ANY historical type documentation to base this film on.
America: Where We Are Tolerant Of All Religions, Except Christianity
Jewishness is passed through the mother, not the father. Anyone with a Jewish mother is Halakhically Jewish, barring perhaps apostasy.
However, one's family and tribal line comes from the father. Mashiach will be descended from David HaMelekh on his paternal side. Someone "born of a virgin" could never fulfill the requirement of being Ben David.
If the pulled post was complaining about the Talmud's treatment of J*sus, FReepers must understand that to devout Jews J*sus is just like Martin Luther is to Catholics or Joseph Smith to more traditional churches--a heretic and founder of a heretical sect.
Jews are not chr*stians and never will be. Hopefully Fundamentalist Protestants will soon come to their senses and become identifying, observant Noachides.
Whoever wrote this isn't very knowledgeable about chr*stianity. The "immaculate conception" refers to the conception of Mary, not to that of J*sus.
actually, my sceptical half has no problem with those who don’t believe Jesus is God saying they don’t believe he was born of a virgin. Why should you?
Many liberal Protestants just think Mary got pregnant a bit early the normal way, from Joseph. Don’t believe in miracles? Voila, no problem.
My point was that the Nazis used this theory to destroy the idea that Christianity has Jewish roots. And when a German uses the theory, one doubts it is because he read the discussion in the Babylonian Talmud.
On the other hand, maybe we should be happy: Modern feminist theologians think Mary was a sly one and got pregnant by her boyfriend and pulled a fast one on Joseph.