Why is everyone in 'The Passion' a white person?

[WilliamPitt]

Just about everyone from that part of the world, in that time, was of darker skin. Hell, even Italians tend to be darker skinned when they are from Italy...at least some of them...one?

No. That movie is filled with white people. All white people. Pale and pasty white people.

Clue Phone calling: Jesus was not white. Spread the word.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

1. Appealing toward their targeted audience

At least that's my guess.

[IronLionZion]

2. because a pasty Irish Catholic made that movie

so they must look just like him. Realism is for traitors and heathens.

[H2O Man]

41. He was white.

He had short blonde hair, pearly white teeth for commercial's sake, generally wore a suit and tie, and hung out with Pat Boone and Dick Cheney. Also, his gang of friends tended to wear Grateful Dead t-shirts, which was a clue they didn't fully understand his republican teachings.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

3. That's one arguement I've heard to refute it's authenticity

It makes sense. Have you seen it?

[WilliamPitt]

7. No, but

I've seen 50,000 ads for it, plus the clips on the news shows. The closest to brown I've seen represented is the coffee the talking heads are drinking when they talk about it.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

16. Only 50,000?

I feel it's going to be crammed down our throats until after Easter.
I'm so tired of it already. If people put half that energy into other things.

[DenverDem]

4. I thought you were talking about the attendees in the theater.

Funny about the casting, though. Caucasians speaking Aramaic?!?!?! Very authentic.

[aquart]

97. Semites are caucasians.

There, I've shocked you.

And very dark-skinned Indians are caucasians. It's not a white skin thing.

Race is still a great mystery to many, isn't it?

[slinkerwink]

5. Jesus was dark-skinned.......that's for sure.....

and I'll bet you money that they don't want their Precious Jesus to look like a Muslim, Italian, or Greek....

[pippin]

42. Actually I think he probably looked a lot like Osama.

Osama. :-)

[preciousdove]

6. All the dark skinned people immigrated to Aztecia and Mayaopolis.

Mel's father told him so.

:silly:

[SmileyBoy]

8. Jesus had olive skin. That's a fact.

People in Judea at the time did NOT have Caucasian skin.

You know what pisses me off the most???

People who portray Jesus of Nazareth as having blond hair and blue eyes.

[IronLionZion]

10. those people are nazis

they were all about the pure Aryan Jesus

[Fight_n_back]

24. "thats a fact"

Its pretty hard to prove Jesus existed. It is a faith based thing.

Of course if he was g_d's kid couldn't he have looked any way g_d wanted? He could have looked like Shaquille O'Neal or Jim Carrey or anyone.

[aquart]

99. Olive-skinned people are caucasians. Geesh.

Very very very high ignorance level in this neighborhood tonight.

So, who here is brachycephalic and who is dolicephalic?

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. Everybody knows Jesus was a white man who spoke English and shopped

at Wal-Mart. Don't believe tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that he was Jewish.

He was a Southern Baptist, just like everybody else who lived there back then.

[sistersofmercy]

68. Now that's funny! n/t

[sasquatch]

11. I believe that Jesus was black

I also believe any person with a fuctioning brain would've walked out on that film if it was shown as a mid flight movie.

[Fight_n_back]

25. Interesting...

neither of his parent's was black (alhough his paternity is controversial)...but believing he was black isn't as kooky as believing he came back from the dead so feel free.

[sasquatch]

28. Why can't Jesus be black in all reality?

I think God would challenge the faith of the people at that time. See if they could put aside their racial bigotry and accept the son of God. BTW how do you know that Mary wasn't bi-racial:silly:

[Fight_n_back]

29. Okay

sure...he can be whatever you want him to be...

I think he looked like Alannis Morrisette, especially around the eyes.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

33. you mean to say that god isn't black?

[Fight_n_back]

35. Even if he were

then Jesus would have ended up looking more like Lenny Kravitz than most black guys we know.

[libertad]

46. Actually, Ruth was from an area in which the people were black,

according to a documentary about the "real Jesus". So, he is lineage was mixed.

[Fight_n_back]

65. Ruth was WAY before Jesus

like about 600 years. She was the grandmother of David so I doubt much would have been passed down.

BTW, one of the things that disqualifies Jesus as the Messiah is that Messiahs have to be from the family of Solomon and the Gospels say that Jesus wasn't.

Anyway, The Life of Brian was a much better movie.

[Rabrrrrrr]

74. <choke> <gasp> What? <choke>

Are you an expert? No, you are not.

a) There is nothing that says that the messaih must be of the family of Solomon, certainly not in the Christian tradition

b) There IS a lot in Scripture that says the messiah must be of the family of David, which the gospels with lineage try to prove Jesus is of

c) Since Solomon WAS David's SON, as it says right there in Scripture, and there is, at least scripturally, no doubt about it that Solomon is the son of David, then, even according to your argument, you are utterly wrong.

Sheesh. If you're criticize something, at least read it.

(And I have a suspicion, though I will wait until I see The Passion, that I might also think Life of Brian is a better movie; or at least, I might end up thinking Dogma is a more faithful movie)

p.s. - on edit, Ruth was about 1000 years before Jesus. If we assume Ruth was the grandmother of David, which I have no real reason to doubt, than that puts her at, let's say, a birth 50 years before David, so perhaps about year 1020. Plus or minus a decade or two.

[Fight_n_back]

76. What?

A) Yes there is (II Samual 7:14, I Chronicles 17: 11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6) According to Luke 3:31 Mary is descended from David's son Nathan.

B) This has nothing to do with anything I said

c) What? Are you saying that I am my Uncle's son? David had a lot of kids and then they had kids and then they had kids....being Davids descendant doesn't make you Solomon's descendent.

So, yeah compared to you I am an expert.

Joseph desended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11). Jeconiah was cursed so that none of his descendants would sit on the throne David. (Jeremiah 22:30, 36:30)


If you folks are going to pretend that this is real then you will have to come up with some real shit.

[Rabrrrrrr]

80. Huh?

A) II Samuel 7:14 says "I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men". Doesn't say anything about the Messiah, or David, or Solomon, or Nathan. In fact, chapter 7 of II Samuel is all about Nathan (the prophet) telling David not to build a temple, because David's son (who turns out later to be Solomon) will build it.

I Chron 17:11-14 is a repeat of the II Samuel stuff.

I Chron 22:9-10 says "Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. <10> He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever."

And I Chron 28:4-6 says "Howbeit the Lord God of Israel chose me before all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever: for he hath chosen Judah to be the ruler; and of the house of Judah, the house of my father; and among the sons of my father he liked me to make me king over all Israel: <5> And of all my sons, (for the Lord hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. <6> And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father."

And yes, the Luke passage says David's son Nathan, but Matthew claims the lineage through Solomon. I'd never noticed the Lukan passage before, but it must be a mistake, since the vast array of Scripture claims that the Messiah would come through the David --> Solomon lineage, as seen above.

I'm now very curious about Luke saying that it was through David's son Nathan (and I don't even remember a son Nathan, I remember only the prophet Nathan - interesting).

I'm curious as to how you feel that all those passages that talk about Solomon are actually talking about Nathan. Please, enlighten me, and I say that honestly - if I've truly missed something in years of study, I want to be corrected, embarassing as it might be.

B)

C) You are right, being David's descendant doesn't make one Solomon's descendant; but since the Biblical witness is that Solomon was king, and that the messiah wuold come through the lineage of David --> Solomon, then, well, the Messiah has to be descended from both, especially since you put forth the thesis that the messiah would come through solomon, and not David, and I proved to you then, and did so now, that Solomon was David's son, and thus to be descended from Solomon is, in fact, to be descended from David.

I'm curious also how to put together the fact that matthew claims that Jesus is the Messiah as the son of Joseph, even though Joseph was apparently part of the curse?

I think it's quite evident that, as usual, the Bible is unclear and contradictory; though I think there is, IMO, overwhelming evidence that it was through David --> Solomon that the Messiah should come forth.

[Fight_n_back]

83. So then why are you arguing with me?

if you agree with me that the evidence is overwhelming that the lineage should go through Solomon and neither Joseph or Mary come from the line of Solomon we are in complete agreement

So why the hubbub, bub?

[Rabrrrrrr]

89. I'm sorry, I don't remember saying that neither Mary nor Joseph

came through Solomon.

Perhaps if you re-read my post.

[Fight_n_back]

91. It doesn't matter if you say it

the Gospels say it. Neither geneology traces from Solomon.

Why don't you call me stupid again, that was classy.

[Rabrrrrrr]

94. I showed a genealogy that DOES

The genealogy of Matthew.

I thought it was obvious when I said "but Matthew claims the lineage through Solomon."

it's right here: Mt 1:6-7a "<6> And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; <7> And Solomon begat Roboam" and etc. etc. etc.

Plus all the other stuff you claimed mentioned Nathan, David's son, but actually mentioned Solomon (all that Samuel and Chronicles stuff). The only thing you offered that suggested a Messianic lineage coming through Nathan was one gospel passage. All the other passages you offered, plus the above Matthew passage, clearly indiciate a David --> Solomon lineage.

[Fight_n_back]

96. Here is where I admit

that I tricked you...

Because tribal affiliation can only be traced through the father. Proving Mary's lineage does nothing for the Messianic argument. (Numbers 1:18, Ezra 2:59)

Joseph was from Nathan:
:23And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 3:24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 3:25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 3:26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 3:27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 3:28the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 3:29the son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 3:30the son of Symeon, the son of Judas, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 3:31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,

Which is all moot because of that whole 2000 years of peace thing that didn't happen.

[aquart]

104. Christian tradition didn't exist before Christ.

THEREFORE, that tradition could not be used in determining the identity of the Messiah if the Messiah was Jesus, now could it?

If JEWISH tradition says descent thru Solomon, likely because he was the son who inherited the throne and the other children did not, then that's the descent we follow.

So how many wives and kids did Solomon have and what happened to every one of them? Get back to me when you have the list.

[aquart]

100. There's a problem with the Ruth descent.

The problem is 30 generations. There's a pronouncement somewhere in the old testament that you can't be a Jew for 30 generations after descent from Moab. Ruth was from Moab and Jewish descent was reckoned thru the mother.

It was undoubtedly a problem for David and Solomon, too, but they didn't give a damn. David was strictly a might makes right kind of king.

[Exultant Democracy]

55. Well if Jesus lineage is to be believed

he could very easily be black. Supposedly he was descended from David, and the only people with an even partially legitimate claim to be directly descended from David today are Black.

[Fight_n_back]

66. ???

You are going to have to back that up with something.

[Exultant Democracy]

81. The Ethiopian royal family

For example their family signal ring which has been passed down every generation to the eldest male heir can be with a high level of certainty be traced back to the house of Solomon.

Most scholars also accept that Jesus is descended from the same house because of 1. it is implied in most biblical texts, and 2. if he wasn't then it would be a direct contradiction th the old testament where it clearly states that the messiah would be a member of that house.

[Fight_n_back]

85. The Ethiopian Royal Family

is descended from Soloman and the Queen of Sheba. She went back to Ethiopia. Nobody claims that Jesus was from Ethiopia. Nobody claims that Jesus was from the line of Soloman.

So the two things have nothing to do with each other.

[Exultant Democracy]

95. Solomon is David's son and most everyone claims

that Jesus is descended from David (and yes most claim that he is also descended from Solomon.) If we want to take your argument then I guess we have to go up one generation to David, but at this point in time I guess a few years doesn't matter much.

Now I was not saying that Jesus was black, but I did say that the people today that are most likely his closest living relatives (as far as can be reasonably extrapolated) are black, it isn't that far a stretch to think that he may in fact have been a black man.

If, for example, Jesus was born today and not 2000 years ago he would almost have to be black according to the definition implied by the messiah in the book.

Edit: I see that this part of the thread and the thread about Ruth have come to a point of convergence so I will just add, "What he said too, with the Black Ruth grandmother and all."

[Fight_n_back]

98. That is

if you believe that the Ethiopian Royal Family is related to David.

You know most of the Eurpopean Kings claimed to be related to Jesus as well.

It is as likely that the Sacramento Kings are as related to King David as those guys.

[Exultant Democracy]

103. I think it is probably more likely that the

Ethiopian royal family is descended from David then it is that Jesus even existed, if only for the fact that their family signal ring is from the correct era with the correct symboling, wherein there is no material evidence of Jesus. If the Spear of Destiny had been proved to be from the correct era, I would have allowed that the Christians would have had proof of about the same level as the Ethiopian signal ring, but it was in fact a forgery made during the rule of Charlemagne. (To be clear I am not saying that the ring is any kind of real proof, just that it is more proof then taking someones word for it or believing a genealogy.)

[aquart]

102. Unless, of course, Sheba was Hatshepsut.

In which case she was simply Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia.

Until we've established the identity of the Queen, maybe we should hold off on the family tree.

[aquart]

101. You really want the mantle of the Chosen? You got it!

[The Traveler]

12. Its absurd ...

And disappointing. Gibson usually adheres to his research better than this.

The Christ we worship is an invention of Europe in general and Rome in particular and has little to do with the radical who walked the hot soil of Jerusalem.

[lazarus]

38. LOL

"Gibson usually adheres to his research better than this."

In what films has he done this? The Patriot and Braveheart were so wildly inaccurate as to be only remotely based on history.

[HawkerHurricane]

13. Concur, but...

I agree, Jesus, the Greeks, the Romans, and the Hebrews were not pale skined, BUT
They are Caucasians.
Just not pale skined northern European types.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

14. Jesus was Brown

Well, I guess not according to Mr. Gibson (aka trying to make a pretty penny off the religious nut crowd)

[DrWeird]

15. So I wrote this thread...

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x804091>

Mel Gibson is a homophobe. And passion plays historically have been, by nature, antisemitic.

So I wondered what would happen if another known homophobe produced a film version of something that has historically been prejudiced...

enjoy.

[flamingyouth]

17. And why is Satan a woman?

Inquiring minds and all that. :shrug:

[MidwestMomma]

72. Why was Satan in the movie at all?

As long Mel is claiming 'authenticity' of an alleged historical event, then the devil does not have a part in the Passion. The devil tempted Jesus in the desert. And that would have to be in the prequel to the Passion...

[Mobius]

86. Satan tempted him for the last time in the Garden

sorry:shrug:

[aquart]

105. With what?

What was tempting to Jesus?

[Mobius]

107. not accomplishing his "mission" and not having to be crucified

using his power for his own ends. Turning his back on his holy father, thereby condemning humanity to seething eternal hellfire? :shrug:
any bible peeps wanna help me out here?

[xray s]

18. and he makes Satan an androgynous female

whats up with THAT? :shrug:

[madrchsod]

22. because women tempt men-eve

and they are unclean because they bleed. mel has issues.....

[Fight_n_back]

19. Evidently there are no Jewish actors

so Jesus always gets played by some Anglo guy with a button nose.

I want to make a movie where Abraham Lincoln is played by a Latino.

[WilliamPitt]

20. Chinga tu madre, Jeff Davis!

:)

[Fight_n_back]

23. Mary Todd, tu es loca, mija

and why did Gibson think that Roman soldiers were from New Jersey?

[skippysmom]

48. ROFL

Jeez, don't do this to me when I'm eating lunch!

[fujiyama]

37. Actually...

the woman that played Mary is Jewish.

[Fight_n_back]

39. That would be one

I think Edward G Robinson may have been the only Jew in the entire Ten Commandments cast.

[Mobius]

110. no shes catholic with jewish blood

and not much of it.

[Mobius]

87. Spike Lee needs to make "The Passion" with ALL black cast members

Is there ANY Jesus movie out there with racially correct actors?

[madrchsod]

21. you noticed this too..

christ looked like the pictures my wasp grandmothers and her sisters had on their walls. oh yes, and the pictures my methodist church

[Rowdyboy]

26. Hey, at least they didn't have heavy British accents like most "Romans"

[Robb]

47. Yeah, we're just lucky Sean Connery wasn't cast as Pilate...

They would've made all the other Romans talk with Scottish accents, a la the Russians in "Hunt for Red October". :eyes:

Another nitpick: isn't it accepted the nails pretty much had to go through the wrists, not the hands? :shrug:

[Lorien]

27. It is absurd

Jesus is so often portrayed by an actor who has the least semitic features imaginable.Revisionist history at it's finest. :-(

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. Made the audience more sympathetic when they nailed him up

Does America ever fret when a dark skinned person dies?

[SoCalDem]

31. I wondered the same thing the other day.. Mel's not accurate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1152699


SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-23-04 10:41 PM
Original message
Mel..Mel.. Mel.. how come "euro-style" actors instead of middle eastern?

Edited on Mon Feb-23-04 10:43 PM by SoCalDem
I wonder why no one has asked him this question on his whirlwind Jesus media show...

He claims to have spared nothing in the "factual" telling of the tale...even down to the use of Aramaic and Hebrew instead of English, and yet, the most important part..the VISUAL part shows us nothing more than what was done in the 1920's biblical movies.. White people made up and pretending to be the real deal..

The reason can only be because his target audience would be "offended" if they were reminded that Jesus was probably a short swarthy dark-skinned man, and so were his apostles and family..

The virgin Mary was NOT a blonde..nor was Jesus or Joseph....

So.. for someone who pretended to try hard to be faithful to "the story". he missed by a mile..

It is gratuitous and hate filled violence, for the sake of violence..

[Sandpiper]

32. This is the closest thing we have to what Jesus probably looked like

It was featured in Popular Mechanics, and was based on the skull of a Jewish man from around the same time period, coupled with what is known of Jesus's ancestry from the bible.

Scientists believe this to be the jumping off point as to what Jesus actually looked like.

[Fight_n_back]

34. I can certainly understand why many Gentiles

would have a hard time believiing that thier savior looked like a cab driver.

[peacebuzzard]

113. ROFLOL!

thanks for my morning laugh.....:7

[Mobius]

109. at least they got the beard right

:shrug:

[LibertyorDeath]

36. Jesus was a white, homophobic Nascar loving good ol boy

every good Christian Fundie knows this. If you look closely at the image of the last supper you can see the Confederate flag.
The Sign of the Southern Cross. What more proof do you need.

What's next the Bibles allegorical

[roguevalley]

40. Jesus was probably olive skinned or tanned at least, had short

hair because long hair was considered too Roman, was strong enough to work at stone cutting <not carpentry> and good enough to inspire people to think differently. He was remembered out of the hundreds of rabbis that roamed the time and its not his fault that his philosophy and teachings have been co-opted by losers.

This movie was about mel, about his fifties notions of catholicism and the price Jesus paid for speaking out. This is about mel, not Jesus who has and always will have my respect.

[MAlibdem]

53. While in Israel, someone offered me a reasonable explaination for walking

on water. She said (a kibbutznik) that during the dry season, there are parts of the Sea of Galilee that extend a ways (60 ft or something) from the shore that are only covered by an inch or two of water.

[Rabrrrrrr]

43. Think about where it was made, and who made it

Jesus definitely was a mid-eastern semitic Jewish person, and thus likely dark skinned, etc. And while I agree that there are many people who really DO think Jesus was a white guy as opposed to a "filthy mid-easterner", one also has to look at the production of the movie somewhat logically and culturally: It was made by a white guy in the midst of a mostly white culture for Northern-Western Christians, who are mostly white. So of course it's filled with white people.

If this movie were made by a Japanese guy, in Japan, you can bet money he would be using Japanese people in the film and Jesus might be a squattish 5'2" Japanese guy with no facial hair.

Or if it were made in Mexico, it would be full of mexican people.

Or if it were made in Kenya, Jesus might be very tall, very black, and have very tightly curled hair.

An Indian version would be filled with Indian people.

And that is as it should be - while Jesus was a middle-eastern dark-skinned Jew, he is also wonderfully contextual. If you go to central America, you'll see Jesus portrayed as a central American. In Africa, Jesus iconography is very dark skinned. In Japan, you'll see Jesus images that are very Japanese - slanted eyes, fair skinned, etc. Look at the religious artwork of Watanabe - the disciples, and Jesus, and others in the biblical stories are very Japanese.

Because Jesus is for all people, then all people are the image of Jesus.

And while we may not like Mel Gibson, I have to sat that from hearing him speak it sounds like he knows Jesus was a Jew and a middle-eaasterner, so I'm quite sure he's aware that Jesus would be darkskinned and dark haired. I don't think he's trying to push any political or racial agenda by using the actors he had at hand.

I agree that we must not force the "White Jesus" idea down people's throats, and esepcailly within our own culture in which it seems quite a few people DON'T want to think of an Olive-skinned, dark-haried bearded, shaggy looking Jesus, but to complain and judge that an Australian-made film has mostly white actors is disingenuous.

[WilliamPitt]

45. So if they made a film about American slavery

and it was an Australian-made film, it would be OK to cast all white people? I don't get it. The film perpetuates a lie. That's not OK, no matter how you slice it.

[Fight_n_back]

67. Brad Pitt as Frederick Douglas

That may have legs...

[Rabrrrrrr]

71. Orson Welles played Othello

Ben Kingsley played Gandhi

Johnathon Rhys Davies played an Egyptian muslim in Indiana Jones.

Hell, for a long time, men played all the female roles in Shakespeare, and every other, plays.

In facts, lots and lots of white people have played Othello.

Every Christmas pageant I've been involved in my churches has had a very white Jesus, Mary, Joseph, shephards, and three kings, except one church, in which one or two of the characters were played by Asian kids.

All artistic expression perpetuates a lie; some suspension of disbelief must be exercised.

Though I don't discount that, especially amongst the white hegemony, that there has been a strong emphasis on not just representing Jesus contextually as a white person but to attempt to enforce a belief that Jesus actually was white, and white only.

Thankfully, in most places, that crap has been ignored by the natives. But we sure get it here in America.

So I don't totally discount your argument, but on the other hand I also have to look at realistically, and ask "Did Gibson have an agenda of trying to make people think Jesus was a white person, or did he just use the actors he had at hand, and he happens to live in a vast majority white culture?"

I think it's the latter, and I don't think any sinister intent (at least, in terms of a White Only Jesus) is at hand in this movie.

[Fight_n_back]

77. Fine and dandy except

the woman who plays Mary is from Romania and if you don't think there are Jewish actors available then...you wuold be the only one that thinks that.

[WilliamPitt]

92. Fine and dandy about sinister intent

I'll accept that he had none. There are also sins of omission, i.e. oops I sinned because I wasn't thinking. Hi, Mel.

[LynneSin]

44. Will you silly boy - Jesus was Aryan

:crazy:

[pippin]

49. some possibilities of what JC may have really looked like?

[HEyHEY]

50. Will.......

WHy do you hate white people so much? ;-)

[MAlibdem]

51. I'm jewish and pasty

So is much of my family.

[anti-NAFTA]

57. I'm Jewish and not pasty.

I'm Sephardic. You're pasty because your ancestors were in Europe for over a thousand years, which itself contributes to genetic alterations, and probably have some genes from European races. I'm not pasty because my ancestors lived in sunny climates like Spain and Algeria and if there are any non-Jews in my bloodline they were darker skinned people.

[arwalden]

52. Because Jesus Was WHITE!! There are PHOTOGRAPHS in my bible

that PROVE it! He was white so stop saying that!

-- Allen

[HEyHEY]

54. giggle

that was funny

[MidwestMomma]

69. And don't forget the halo

He should always have a halo of light around his head according to my bible. Was that in the movie?

[Rabrrrrrr]

73. halos are only in iconography

and are an essential aspect of that art, for Jesus, Mary, and all the saints.

The halo is an ancient and venerable artistic device to represent that the person being represented is holy.

As a protestant, I'm not big on the halo or iconography thing, though I respect the tradition and the meaning it has for those to whom it has meaning.

Please don't ridicule that which is of incredible - and ESSENTIAL - importance to some people. It is not something to laugh about or insult. Even I, who often criticize the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, wouldn't be so base.

[MidwestMomma]

75. Umm, I'm confused

You're offended and feel the need to lecture me about my halo post but you're not offended by the post below showing a picture of Bush with a halo? You even responded to that post with a post of your own about the Bushchrist. And you call me base? Why the double standard?

[Rabrrrrrr]

78. Because the BushChrist is making fun of the people

who think Shrub is the new Messiah, and while I am very much for respecting the religious views of people, there are certain realms of stupidity about which I am totally agreeable to ridicule. I don't think that one makes fun of Orthodox people at all.

But YOUR ridicule of showing JESUS with a halo *is* offensive to an awful of people for whom that halo is very important in their artistic, and spiritual, understanding of holy people.

I hope you can see the different. I think it is quite plain, and it is a HUGE difference. If you don't get it, than I'm probably not going to be able to explain it to you, and I won't attempt to do so. If condeming all Christian belief is your thing, then that's fine. It's not mine, but I respect your right to do so. If it isn't your thing, than I hope I've helped clarify.

[MidwestMomma]

79. I think saying I condemn all Christian beliefs because I made a halo joke

is completely ridiculous. You don't know thing one about me or my beliefs.

And you still haven't explained why you didn't object to the post with the picture of Bush with a halo. That's okay by you? You don't think that's ridiculing and offensive? I guess if you don't then there's no way I can explain to you that you are imposing a double standard by jumping my shit for my post but not having a problem with the halo picture of Bush.

If making broad assumptions about someone based on one post is your thing, then that's fine. It's not mine, but I respect your right to do so.

[Rabrrrrrr]

88. Did you read my post?

No, you didn't.

I didn't say you condemned all Christian beliefs. I was asking if you were, or if you were not.

And I did explain why - because the one makes fun of Shrub and the people who think he's the new annointed one. Maybe we sholdn't make fun of such people, but it's so facrcical and heretical that it's worthy of a laugh, IMO.

Your post suggesting that showing JESUS with a halo was a guffaw-producing clever little witticism was problematic to me because, to me, it has an implicit disregard for those Christians for whom halos in iconography are an important, and essential component, to their religious understanding.

But, if you'd read my post, you would realize I was NOT making broad assumptions. I admitted I didn't know your motivations, and was seeking clarification.

So, if you'd care to offer to answer my questions, and clarify for me, that would be great. I did not condemn you, at least not intentionally. I seek clarification before I either condemn you, or laugh with you.

But if you are a Shrub supporter who thinks he's the second coming and is a holy man, then, okay, yeah, I'm condeming you and ridiculing you. But I'd be quite shocked if you think that.

[peacebuzzard]

114. And God is Brazilian!

Everyone knows that.;)

[Moriarty]

56. And why are they all carrying around the King James Bible?(nt)

nt

[Liberal Veteran]

58. Ancient Middle Easterns were all white folk.....

Didn't you know that?

[jpgray]

59. DUH! He was a miracle birth--an Austrian born to Semitic parents (nt)

[geniph]

60. Jesus was the greatest American who ever lived!

(every time there's a poll about Greatest Americans, there's always about 20% of the respondents who answer Jesus. Apparently, he was not only white, but English-speaking and born somewhere in the Bible Belt of the American Midwest or South.)

:eyes:

[pippin]

61. You mean like this?

[Rabrrrrrr]

62. I pray daily thanks because God sent the BushChrist!

Thank you God for the second coming of our most needed messiah to teach the nasty democrats that they are unrighteous! Thank you BushChrist! Your humility shames us all. I weep at your might and your courage. I bow to your perfection.

[MidwestMomma]

70. That's too funny!

[absyntheNsugar]

63. Nazarenes like Jesus were dark skinned

And not just because of the sun, but people from that region were known to be curly haired, dark olive skinned types.

[mlawson]

64. Because Gibson knew who his audience would be. n/t

[boilerbabe]

82. but even by the time they were done with it, no-one was pasty

I had a hard time gettng through that one...you have to figure that the cell phones and such were not a part of this ...and I am not a religious person, this movie definately freaked me out...it made me think..though not like thinking along the lines that I have to...I don't know what else to say

[Mobius]

84. I guess Mel was not concerned with reality after all

If he had been, none of the actors, except a few of the romans I guess, would have been white.

[aquart]

106. Actually, not so true. Celts were all over that area.

They were mercenaries for damn near everyone. They had at least one permanent settlement in or near Egypt. On the coast, if I remember the map I saw.

I don't suppose anyone here is ready for the Lonely Roman Soldier Theory of Movie Casting and Genetics, but casting directors are perfectly comfortable casting Greeks, Italians, Jews, and Arabs interchangeably not to mention scores of other ethnic roles. Mostly from formerly occupied nations of the Roman Empire.

Lotta lonely Roman soldiers. Lotta them.

And no one here would hint for a second, NOT ONE SINGLE SECOND, that a sweet young thing named Mary met one of them and then couldn't think of a thing to tell her family. PUT THAT THOUGHT RIGHT OUT OF YOUR MIND.

But anything is possible where God tells the story, now isn't it?

[WilliamPitt]

90. I went and did this

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022704A.shtml

[Fight_n_back]

93. Have you ever thought about

becoming a writer?

[Mobius]

108. Define "white"

Im not kidding. Peoples' conception of "white" has changed alot, especially over the last century. What do you define "white" as a racial term to mean?

[BonjourUSA]

111. Because we are used to see more often a no-white man beaten

The aim of this film is to upset the white-christian-middle class-people

[turnhardleft]

112. Did they all look the same?

You know the drill.