2009/05/18

Angels & Demons make huge errors in history, theology, philosophy, & church history


Although Dan Brown's Angels & Demons did not enjoy nearly the success of his DaVinci Code, & although the Ron Howard, Tom Hanks movie Angels & Demons doesn't appear to be headed for the same popularity as the DaVinci Code movie, both versions of Angels & Demons make huge errors in history, theology, philosophy, & church history that could undermine the faith of credulous Christians and affirm the skepticism of credulous non-believers. Christians should be prepared with some good answers to the main errors.

A Catholic publisher, Ascension Press, has published a free e-book: Answering Angels & Demons, by Catholic apologist Mark Shea, that is a handy primer for those who want quick answers to the main errors.

This e-book does a good job of summarizing the major errors in Angels & Demons, & mostly sticks to the common articles of faith all Christians share, regardless whether we are Protestants, Catholics, or Orthodox. Although I have specific reasons I am not Catholic, & although I don't agree with everything in this handy answer, I do believe it is a good defense of the true Christian faith specifically against the kinds of errors promoted in Angels & Demons, & I am confident if you read the free e-book, you will be well equipped to answer people's general questions about Christianity that may arise from the book or move.

Blessings in Christ,
Gretchen Passantino
Director
Answers In Action

2009/05/03

About the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ”


About the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ”
(From the Byzantine Icon to the TV Set)


The Holy Scripture does not give us any detail concerning the aspect of Jesus. This fact gave birth to some controversial theories concerning the historic aspect of the Saviour. The truth about the aspect of God preoccupied the minds of the Christians immediately after the epoch of those who were eyewitnesses. The reason for which the aspect of the Saviour did not spread among the first Christians arises from the very essence of Christianity, from the high philosophical principles concentrated around the spiritual world and not around the material one. That is why the material aspect of Christ was replaced very easily by symbols, for example the fish (made of stone or of amber and hung by Christians at their neck in the same way we do today with the cross), and had no impediment upon their belief in Him. The first Christians, because they were waiting for the second coming of the Saviour (which they considered to be immediate) focused more on the spiritual side, that is the facts which concerned more their own Salvation and paid less attention to external details, for example the physical aspect of the Saviour. Certainly, this situation changed in time. Due to the fact that very few people could reach the high Christian philosophy, and the fame of the Wiseman from Nazareth surpassed the boundaries of His people spreading among the pagans, some images of the Saviour began to appear as each people could imagine Him. For instance, the Romans represented Christ as a soldier carrying a sheep upon His back (The Kind Sheppard, Roman catacombs, centuries II-III), while the Greeks represented Him as a beardless young man, bearing in mind the model of Hermes. In one word, the cult of the human body cultivated by the Greeks, the pagan anthropocentricism reflects inevitably upon the painted representations of Christ. It is against this fact that the fathers of the Vth–VIth Ecumenical Synod (692) rise and interdict categorically all images by means of the rule 100, images which “…put spells upon the eyes, corrupt the mind and create explosions of devilish pleasures”. That is why, the Byzantine style of canonic representation has been established to represent the Saviour, His Mother and all the Saints and is present even today in Orthodox churches. Serious and essential, the Byzantine style catches the state of the deified, spiritual body lacking any allusion to human body; this is the new body about which Apostle Paul speaks. This canon was violated in the western countries where a soppy, even perverse painting has been developed since the Renaissance and until nowadays. But which is, in fact, the truth about the image of God because since He had a human body and lived among us, it is clear that He had a historic countenance, which He appeared with. Let’s see what the Christian philosopher Origenes says in his work “Against Celsius”, written in the year 248 where he quotes Celsius: “If the Spirit of God embodied truly in him (Jesus), then he must distinguish himself from the other ones by the beauty of his face, by the perfection of his body, as well as by the art of speaking. Because one can’t believe that the one in whose body was something of divine origin can’t distinguish himself from the other ones. And still people say that Jesus had a miserable body and a face so ugly that it provoked abhorrence”. 1 The opinion about un unpleasant aspect of the Saviour belonged to the early Christian theologies (Tertulianus, Saints Clement and Cyril of Alexandria, Saint Irineus of Lyon, and others) and it was based on the literally understanding of one of prophet Isaiah’s verses referring to the embodiment of God: “He had neither a pleasant face, nor beauty so that we could admire Him and no pleasant aspect to care for Him. He was despised even by the last man of no importance” (Is. 53, 2-3). However, we incline to joint the parents who find in this verse the direct indication to Saviour’s passions. In this respect, the description, which is clearly repellant, does not influence the conception about the physical perfection of Christ. In fact, imperfection itself is a consequence of the falling. Because “God created the man according to His own image” (Creation, 1, 27) “ and God realized it was good” (Creation, 1, 12-18-21-25). So, creating Adam, God made him perfect and only sin could generate all the later imperfections, even the physical ones, as stigmata of “his death” (Creation, 3, 3) and as a violation of the command of God. Yet “the holiness of the body of our God and Saviour was infinitely greater than the holiness in which the being’s body was created – the body of Adam”. 2 Any physical imperfection, in this case, in the description of our Saviour, would come in contradiction with the lack of sin, which is said to characterize Him. Christ’s physical perfection is the guarantee for the success of the renewal of the old Adam by the new Adam – our God.
Starting from the same fact - that of deifying of Christ as noted by Origenes, Saint Ignatie Brancianinov writes: 3 “ The body of the God-man had a strange grace and beauty, exactly as His proto-father and prophet David sang about Him: Adorned with beauty art Thou more than the sons of men (Psalm 44, 2). But the physical beauty of the God-man had not the same effect upon women, as usually does the beauty of men6. Such a blasphemy must be rejected although it is pronounced and accepted by heretics.7 On the contrary, the body of Christ healed all the passions – both of the body and of the soul. His body was impregnated with divine grace and spread it all around to those who touched Him, both men and women. Great power went out of Him – says the Gospel – and healed everybody.(Luke, 6,19). And all those who touched Him were healed. (Mark, 6, 56). This is that divine body about which God Himself stated: The one who eats My body and drinks My blood will live forever and I will raise him from the dead in the Last Day. (In.6, 54-56). Saint Joannnis Chrisostomus is of the same opinion when he states that “Jesus was a very beautiful man”; together with Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Blessed Augustine, Saint Ambrosias of Mediolania they were convinced that the God- man “adorned Himself with beauty more than the sons of men”; “ Thy lips were covered with holy grace and this is why Thou art blessed by God.” (Psalm 44, 3).
But the stage director Martin Scorsese considers this problem in a very different way in his movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” (made after Nikos Kazantzakis’s book). 8 For him, Jesus Christ is not the Chosen One. Not only that He equals everybody, but also He is completely trite, He is more than ordinary. His face lacks any trace of the divine grace and is physically repulsive. His face is full of platitude, exactly as His life is. In His discussion with Judah He states that one needs to free his soul because if one does not so, the chain of evil will never be broken, that the main purpose is the salvation of the soul and not the liberation from the Roman oppression or the salvation of the body, as Judah states. All these do not convince the spectator through the metaphorical solutions given to the events, especially the crucifixion, which abounds in purely physiological elements and in the sufferance of Jesus crucified. He dies physically on the Cross and one can’t believe His spirit will ever reach at His Father.”9 The impression made by Scorsese’s movie is not even this base philosophy but something even scarier. The idea that Christ was not God is found in Gospels at the God-killing Jews and that is why they crucified Him. “We found this man rebelling our people and saying He is Christ”(Luke, 23, 2). The idea that Jesus was born in fornication and that He was demonized is also present in Gospels at the same mad Jews (Mark, 3, 22; John, 8, 41). Scorsese goes further and presents on the screen the filthy gossips created around our Saviour and Mary Magdalene.
In fact, this subject preoccupied not only Scorsese. The Spanish writer Jose Saramago publishes a novel with the same subject “The Gospel after Jesus” (immediately translated into Russian) for which he was awarded with the 1997 Nobel Prize for literature. The Romanian yogis who imported it for their western colleagues discussed this subject. The yogis, especially the western ones, try to motivate their orgies not only by the means of their deities as Krishna (who had 16,800 goppy-sheperdesses) but also by ascribing such lying “qualities” to our saints and even to our Saviour Jesus Christ (we are aware of the speculations made by the resemblance of the words Krishna and Christ). They like to discuss not only on the case of Mary the Egyptian and of Mary Magdalene but also on some other examples taken from the Patristic Texts in which are presented the fallings of some monks followed by their repentance and reformation.
The yogis even found the phrase from the Gospel in which Jesus “praises” fornication: “Her multitude of sins is forgiven because she loved a lot” (Luke, 7, 47). Considering their clever minds, “she loved a lot” refers to the fact that she loved lots of men. As I discussed more than half a day with one of these yogis, a person who pretends to be a writer and I could not convince him by the contrary, I dare to make things clear. If Jesus praised Mary Magdalene for the fact that “she loved lots of men” as yogis pretend, why did Mary Magdalene (who loved Jesus sincerely till the end of her life) gave up fornication, if He praised her for doing this? Where do we know she gave up fornication from? From her crying and tears. For what reason such a famous woman as she was at that time, came and humiliated herself in front of all the others? Because she spread His words together with the Apostles till the end of her life and because she was the first person to whom Jesus revealed Himself after Resurrection (John 20, 14-16). The trouble with this movie is not its subject because it belongs to an unbeliever, but the fact that it was presented in an orthodox country. Nowhere in the world can one present an anti-Semitic movie without being followed by repercussions, especially in Israel.
Never the Istanbul Television will present a movie in which prophet Muhammad is mocked at. While in India, no one dares to drive away a cow from the autoroute because it is considered to be saint! The same movie was presented in Russia in 1997. This is the opinion of the famous theologian, with a doctorate in philosophy, maybe the most famous apologist of contemporary Russia, deacon Andrei Kuraev: “the most outrageous event of the religious life of Russia of the year 1997 happened on November 9th. On this Sunday evening the NTV presented the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ”. The hidden conflict between the huge informational kingdom of Russia and the Orthodox Church broke out, the former declaring war on the latter.”11 The Church gave no occasion for this. The calendar was the only reason: November the 9th, the celebration of the Crystal Night. This is the sad night when persecutions on Jews began in the Nazi Germany. It is understood that the main director of the NTV, Alexandr Faifman as well as its owner, Mr. Gusinski (general director of “media-MOST” and president of the Russian Jewish Congress) keep in mind a painful recollection of this night. But why he decided to revenge upon the Russian orthodox believers for the crime of the German neo-pagans (it is already known that Nazism, nourished by occultism, was an enemy not only for Judaism but also for Christianity)? Why this pain of him flooded as an insult upon that people who saved the European Jewish Community from annihilation?
No insults? Was it only the right of every person the express freely his own opinion? Yes, there is such a right, within its natural limits. The free movement of my hand ends exactly where the face of another person begins. The other one’s pain – this is the border upon which not even the most legitimate sentiments of mine can pass. Neither my joy, nor my sorrow must provoke other people’s pain (…)
Yes, every person has the right do discuss with Christians, the right to criticize and to contradict. But he has no right to spit and to utter blasphemies. It is a blasphemy to stamp upon one’s memory bed scenes between Mary Magdalene and… And there are the explanations: “Look, this fact is intended, these are hallucinations created by the Devil in the consciousness of the Crucified”, explanations which have no importance. According to Christian knowledge, in general, bad and lying thoughts cannot appear in the consciousness of the God-man Christ. The voice of the King of Darkness cannot sound within the Son of God. But his movie is a blasphemy not only from the point of view of the believer. A massive anti-cultural movement promotes an intentional blasphemous reading of The Gospel. Thirst for mockery, for defiling, everything is saint, characterizes the contemporary nobility. Pushkine becomes interesting not by his poetry but by his “Don Juan list”; they remember Chaikovsky especially when talking about sexual minorities…”12 The fight of the Church against such sub-productions is not the fight of some fanatic persons against cultural progress but an impulse to direct towards the true culture. An impulse to discover and make known the profoundness of the human spirit that is not proper to animals, that is to make us aware of the immortality of our human soul, of the high philosophy we are summoned to understand. In this specific case, there is not a simple violation of religious intimacy of Christians, but a distortion of reality and a pathologic alienation from the minimum intellectual stability, which is necessary to each person.
The movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” was rejected not only by the believers but also by non-believers, because it is full of improper realism, but not of realism, widely speaking. In the Orthodox theology there is a concept as “religious mystical realism” (Pavel Florenski, Leonid Uspenski, and others) whose essence lays in the fact that iconography when creating “the unimaginable face” (or “the incomparable resemblance”) reflects the supreme deifying reality. And that is why the religious symbol is much more realistic than the illusory imitation of life in realistic painting. The symbol does not oppose to realism, but to the abstract imagination, which declines any relationship with reality, except that with itself.13 That is why the canonic representation of Christ in orthodox iconography is the closest to His historical and mystical reality and only the spiritual immaturity of some persons led to the decay of the icon in its Renaissance and Roman-catholic variant. In this respect it is very easy to follow the spiritual state of a certain people end epoch, considering the way of thinking the icon, the seeing face of the unseen. With the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ”, mankind touches the climax of moral and spiritual regression. What God did in the beginning “according to His face and resemblance”, does no longer exist. Now it is the man who creates God according to his face and rotten resemblance (Romans 1, 23).
And if through the means of “the seventh art” – the movie, painting surpassed itself (and we are entitled to call the movie a living painting), more than the essay of the Ancients to stop the time, that helpless sigh of Goethe: “Stop, oh, moment: how wonderful you are!” then the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” is the unavoidable sequel of a not respected iconographic canon from the year 692.14 The lack of obedience of the Roman- Catholics as well the practice of painting catalyzed by the feelings of the decayed nature, developed together with the extension of painting within the film art, towards the serious accents which result from this movie.



1. Iu.G. Bobrov, Bases of Old Russian Iconography (Osnovi iconografii drevnerusscoi jivopisi), Axioma, Sanct-Petersburg, 1995, p. 188
2. St. Ignatii Brancianinov, Izlojenie ucenia Pravoslavnoi Tzercvi o Bojiei Materi, Statisi, Sanvt-Peterburg, 1997, p. 10
3. Idem, p. 11
4. The case of Mary Magdalene who, after touching His feet, got holiness and gave up sin.
5. The novel inspired by the Gospel and known as Passion douloureuse de notre Seigneur Jesus Christ, par Ecaterine dEmerich ( With he Saint’s note). For our century see, for instance, “ The Gospel after Jesus” by Jose Saramago (the1997 Nobel Prize).
6. We note hat Nikos Kazantzakis, considered the greatest Greek prose writer of the XXth century was awarded both with Nobel Prize and with the anathema thrown upon him by the Orthodox Church of Greece.
7. Iacovlev E.G., “The Image of Christ in Orthodoxy within the context of the Universal Culture” ( “Obraz Hrista v pravoslavii v contexte morovoi relighioznoi culturi’, Naucino Bogoslavskie Trudi, Belgorod, 1999, p. 240
8. NTV (Russian HTB). An independent TV, the most popular in the post-soviet Russia
9. Deacon Andrei Kuraev, “ Kak delaiut antisemitom”,Odighitria Publishing House, Moscow, 1999
10. Deacon Andrei Kuraev, ibidem
11. Quoted by Iacovlev E. G., ibidem, p. 240
12. It is against this fact that the fathers of the Vth-VIth Ecumenical Synod
(692) rose and forbade all unchaste images by the means of the canon 100: “ That is why we command that from now on such images that put spells on the eyes, corrupt the mind or create explosions of devilish pleasures, should not be painted on wood or on other materials. If somebody dares to do this, anathema must be thrown upon him “.



http://www.sfaturiortodoxe.ro/orthodox/orthodox_advices_hieromonk_savatie_the_last_temtation_of_christ.htm

Scholars at the American Academy of Religion Discuss "Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter"


Scholars at the American Academy of Religion Discuss "Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter"
di Massimo Introvigne


Controversial Canadian movie Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter, directed by Lee Gordon Demarbre, was shown to a capacity crowd of scholars at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) in Toronto on November 23, 2002, and discussed in two different sessions.

For those who have not seen it, the movie is a bizarro crossover between blasphemous comedy and horror. It opens with vampires suspiciously operating in daily sunlight, inducing two priests to call in for help none less than Jesus Christ himself. The Lord agrees to intervene, performs a couple of miracles in order to prove that he is indeed the Son of God, gets an haircut and an ear piercing, and is attacked by a gang of atheists. He defeats them by showing a truly divine command of martial arts. Back to the apartement the local parish has prepared for him, he finds there Mary Magnum (i.e., obviously, Marry Magdalene), a curvaceous fighter who attacks him but is, however, on his side, and belongs to a secret organization of vampire hunters whose existence is known only to the Vatican (her business card, however, has an E-mail address at vatican.com, while – perhaps unbeknowst to the scriptwriter – the correct address should be vatican.va). Jesus and Mary prepare their stakes to battle the vampires, but the first encounter show that they are not that easy to get, even by hunters endowed with ultimate supernatural powers. In fact, a crazy doctor has discovered that replacing their undead skin with fresh skin taken from newly deceased lesbians make them immune to sunlight. They also have double agents among the Catholic clergy, ready to betray Jesus and his friends. Mary is turned into a vampire,and Jesus is left bleeding in a back alley. In a modern retelling of the Samaritan story, a policeman and a priest ignore him, and the only person who cares is a transexual prostitute.

At this stage, with the movie becoming increasingly bizarre, Jesus decided he needs help and enlists Santo, a well-known figure in the old Mexican wrestling movies (where, of course, he did fight vampires). Santos and Jesus trace the vampires back to a night club, where Santo falls in love with a lesbian. Both Santos and Jesus are captured by the vampires but in the final battle they defeat them. Jesus, now in his full power and glory, turns Mary back into a human being only to discover that she, too, has turned lesbian during her short existence as a vampire, whilst Santo’s love interest, also duly resurrected, is at least bisexual. The movie concludes with a Canadian version of the Sermon on the Mount in a park, so politically correct that Jesus tells the audience not to believe his words merely because of himself and to rather trust their own judgement.

This looks very much like a farce à la Monty Python, only much worse and calculate to enrage Christians (actually, during the show at the AAR some veiled female Moslem scholars did leave the room finding the movie blasphemous – Jesus Christ being obviously a prophet for Islam). It is a testament to the deeply secularized nature of English-speaking Canada that there has been, apparently, very few controversy. As a farce, the movie was a hit with the younger scholars at AAR but left the older more cold and perplexed.

In the sessions, some scholars suggested however that the movie is not perceived as a mere farce. According to Laurel Zwissler, from the University of Toronto, a sizeable portion of the viewers she surveyed did identify with Jesus Christ as superhero (although of course the comedy element could not be lost to anybody). Making Jesus Christ into a superhero (with limitations as well as superpowers) is a way to make him relevant again, Zwissler said, in a deeply secularized society such as modern-day Ontario. AAR scholars tried to interpret the movie’s theology. If there is one, it is obviously liberal, with Jesus Christ refusing to condemn homosexual as well as etherosexual prostitutes, and a transvestite cast in the role of the good Samaritan. The Sermon on the Mount would please the Jesus Seminar more than Jean Paul II (who, in fact, calls Jesus on his cell phone during the sermon in the movie; Jesus would only talk to him later, however, and we may only suspect what the conversation will be about). Mary Magdalene is duly sexy and feminist, with reminiscences (Zwissler said) of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, although she is much more similar to Joe Benitez’s The Magdalena, who in her own comic series battles vampires and is part of an unbroken chain of vampire hunters going back to the Magdalene of the Gospels. Zwissler did mention some comics, but they are those where Jesus Christ is portrayed as a vampire (taking to extremes the eucharistic metaphor in Dracula), whose message is reversed here by making Jesus Christ into a vampire hunter.

Discussions at the AAR prove that vampire themes are relevant to the religious scholars (another paper discussed several characters in the Buffy TV series and their relationships with evil), and that the movie has potential for generating theological discourse, but whether this is caught by the average viewer remains to be seen. Many will only see the farce, and as a farce the movie is blasphemous (although theologians in the AAR panels were quick to remember that blasphemy may be the mask for a secret prayer). Others would regard Demarbre’s Jesus as just a bit too much politically correct.


CESNUR Home Page - DRACULA Library



http://www.cesnur.org/2002/dracula/08.htm







Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter
(Canada)


By KEN EISNER
Read other reviews about this film

Powered By
An Odessa Filmworks (Ottawa) production, with support from the City of Ottawa and the Independent Filmmakers' Cooperative of Ottawa. Produced, directed, edited by Lee Gordon Demarbre. Screenplay, Ian Driscoll.

With: Phil Caracas, Murielle Varhelyi, Maria Moulton, Ian Driscoll, Josh Grace, Jeff Mottet, Tim Devries, Tracy Lance, Erica Murton, Glen Jones, Jose Sanchez, Mike Funk, Lucky Ron, Johnny Vegas.


The Rideau river runs red in "Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter," a cheeseball spoof proving that there's life in Ottawa, even if the undead do stalk the halls of Parliament. Grainy 16mm pic, which got an honorable mention at this year's Slamdance fest and will be offered in the Cannes market, is now being self-distribbed on alt-arthouse circuit, where it should build a small-but-religious following.
Canada's own Ed Wood, the multi-hatted Lee Gordon Demarbre, previously delivered campy "Harry Knuckles and the Treasure of the Aztec Mummy." Here, he sends up Bible epics, Hammer horror pics, rock musicals and chopsocky cheapies in a tale that poses the Second Coming as an occasion for some serious ass-kicking. Jesus makes his comeback when some punked-out priests plead for help in warding off vampires that are draining the capital city of its finest lesbians.

The Son of God (Phil Caracas) survives an attack by snaggle-toothed suckers, including the svelte Maxine Shreck (Murielle Varhelyi), but his beard-and-sandals look doesn't: A red-suited Emma Peel type (Maria Moulton) assists in a makeover that leaves him looking like Scott Bakula on casual Friday. He then goes after the evildoers, eventually calling upon a masked Mexican-wrestling star to make things right.

Fundamentalists may be offended by the plot description of a kick-ass Jesus who uses kung-fu to wipe out lesbian vampires. But for most others, including religious people, the film is too silly to offend.

Although pic contains virtually no religious or social commentary, Demarbre is nothing if not ambitious; his big musical numbers feature actual choreography, and he goes in for the occasional gory spectacle and slapstick gag -- all done on a budget that would barely buy matzos for a Passover party.

More than one option(Person) Jose Sanchez
Driver, Layout Artist, Makeup
(Person) Jose Sanchez
Actor
(Person) Jose Luis Sanchez
(Person) Jose Sanchez
Sound
(Person) Jose Sanchez
(Person) Jose Sanchez

More than one option(Person) Ed Wood
(Person) Edward D Wood Jr

Camera (color, 16mm), Demarbre; music, Grahan Collins, Hammerheads, others; production designer, Josh Grace; set decorator, Cort Dewan; costume designer, Zoe Ashby, Karen Fries; sound, Petr Maur; choreographer, Ken Godmere; assistant director, Mark Pollesel. Reviewed on videocassette at Victoria Film Festival, Feb. 10, 2002. (Also in Slamdance Film Festival and Cannes Film Festival -- market.) Running time: 85 MIN.




Variety is striving to present the most thorough review database. To report inaccuracies in review credits, please click here. We do not currently list below-the-line credits, although we hope to include them in the future. Please note we may not respond to every suggestion. Your assistance is appreciated.

Date in print: Sun., May 12, 2002,
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117917701.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0

THE VERY BLASPHEMOUS ULTRACHRIST FILM


THE VERY BLASPHEMOUS ULTRACHRIST FILM
"Ultrachrist!"

Buy it from Amazon

Rent it from Netflix



By Rob Blackwelder

This is the kind of one-camera, do-it-yourself independent comedy that wouldn't be half as amusing if it didn't inspire a lot of leeway by looking as if it were made on a budget of about $60. It's the story of the Second Coming, in which a rather cluelessly out-of-step Jesus (pop-eyed Jonathan C. Green) decides his message would be best served, as he battles modern sin in Manhattan, by adopting a cheap Spandex-and-Teva-sandals superhero persona -- Ultrachrist!

Thick with irony, blasphemy and Klezmer music, the movie is clumsy (especially its incessant sex-humor overtones and ineptly expository dialogue), its plot is scattershot (Satan -- who for some reason is the New York City Parks Commissioner -- resurrects Adolph Hitler, Richard Nixon and Jim Morrison to defeat Jesus), and the acting is of the hammy, under-rehearsed one-take, Z-budget variety. Curiously though, that fact seems to serve the film's kooky one-liners well: "The crucifix is the symbol of Christianity?!?," Jesus balks. "I hated the crucifix! Owch!" Of course, the same factor also amplifies the far more prevalent clunkers, like "Never has there been such a concentration of pure sin since the last Daytime Emmy Awards!"

Yet co-writer and (obviously) first-time director Kerry Douglas Dye gives the movie just enough zany, underground, semi-competent, "Rocky Horror"-crossed-with-early-Woody-Allen appeal to win some eye-rolling grins.

**1/2 out of ****
(91m | NR)

http://splicedwire.com/03reviews/ultrachrist_dvd.html

The Gospel According to the Son is a 1999 novel by Norman Mailer-Blasphmous

The Gospel According to the Son is a 1999 novel by Norman Mailer.
April 24, 1997
Yes, His New Book Is Biblical, but Don't Call Him God
By BRUCE WEBER
There is an old joke Norman Mailer is particularly fond of about a man who is complaining to God. The man whines: ''You're not treating me fairly, God. Why not? Why don't you treat me fairly?''

''And the thunder comes down from heaven,'' Mr. Mailer said, anticipating the punch line with a boyish grin. ''And God says, 'Because you bug me.' ''

Mr. Mailer told the joke this week to help explain his own religious beliefs -- and the God in his new book, ''The Gospel According to the Son.''

''I've always been religious,'' he said. ''I just have a God that's a little different from others. It's not because I'm special. It's just that it's the only thing that makes sense for me: the notion I have of an imperfect God doing the best that He or She can do. I've found it immensely useful as a religion, because self-pity used to be one of my vices.''

Hence the joke.

This is a powerful God indeed if He (or She) is responsible for transforming Mr. Mailer from a self-pitying sort. Now 74, he is, of course, among the most ambitious, hubristic, audacious writers (and New Yorkers) of the past half century.

In his journalistic and novelistic narratives, he has presumed to enter the minds of contemporary killers and ancient Egyptians, not to mention Muhammad Ali, Marilyn Monroe, Lee Harvey Oswald and Pablo Picasso, among others. At the same time, he has led a public life of a celebrity-like nature, an odd type of self-aggrandizement for a serious writer. He has had six wives and has eight children. Among his famous forays into the headlines: a stabbing attack of his second wife, Adele, in 1960; an unsuccessful run for Mayor of New York in 1969; his involvement, in 1982, with Jack Henry Abbott, a writer whose release from prison he helped secure and who subsequently killed a waiter in the East Village.

So should anybody be surprised at his latest venture, in which he purports to retell what the writer Fulton Oursler called ''The Greatest Story Ever Told''? That is the story of Jesus Christ, of course, which Mr. Mailer has set about narrating by the Son of God himself. Finally, the true story of the virgin birth, loaves and fishes, walking on water, the raising of Lazarus, the resurrection, not to mention a coming of age story in which a young man comes to understand his demanding Dad.

All this, from a Brooklyn Jew, may be the very embodiment of chutzpah, which Mr. Mailer acknowledges as a ''vulgar and endearing'' quality that is ''very much a part of New York.'' And though he is rounder, more like a snowman than he was in his more physically pugnacious days, Mr. Mailer maintains his clear-eyed combative quality, his ease with self-defense.

''What people don't understand is the power of a novelist,'' he said. ''It doesn't surprise them at all if a surgeon can pull off a marvelous cure, if he cuts into a place in the heart that's never been cut before. They think if a guy's been a professional for 30 or 40 years, he should be good. Well, I've been a novelist for 50 years. I should be good. I should be able to try things that other people can't try.

''What people think is the largest dare of all I think was the only sensible thing to do, and that was writing in the first person. The negative side was obvious. 'How dare Norman Mailer! Vanity is vanity, hubris is hubris, but this is passing the point of no return,' and so forth and so on. So let me just assure the New York world -- the rest of America will never believe me -- that I do not think of myself as Jesus Christ.''

The new book, he said, was in part a celebration of Jesus Christ as a radical with a conscience. ''Not as radical as Judas,'' said Mr. Mailer, who portrays Judas Iscariot as an unforgiving zealot who betrays Jesus for having a wavering, very human faith. ''But radical enough for me.''

Sitting in the Brooklyn Heights apartment where he has lived since 1961, he lamented the demise of his view across the East River to lower Manhattan.

''It's gotten awful,'' he said. Once, he recalled, it was an urbanscape slowly ascending from the Battery shore north to a nest of spired skyscrapers, ''like foothills rising into mountains.'' He waved a dismissive hand. ''Now it's all these flattops.''

His scorn for the profile of the financial district was not irrelevant to his new book; his Jesus is fiercely disturbed by greed, by the elevation of worldly goods above spiritual concerns.

''Jesus saw the horror of money,'' Mr. Mailer said. ''As I was reading the New Testament, I realized in a funny way that the message that Jesus had, the animosity he felt toward money, the sense that Mammon was scourging the world, is so applicable today. It's significant that at the end of the cold war, a huge greed, a huge passion to destroy the safety net in America came into being. There's something terribly ugly in capitalism, and what's happened now in America is all our values are being leached out by the immense appetite for money.''

''The Gospel According to the Son'' is Mr. Mailer's 30th book, and by his standards, it is, at 242 pages, brief. Un-Maileresque, as well, is its language and tone, which is largely without the rambling, muscular sentences and grandiosity of personal pronouncement that have pleased or outraged his readers over the years. Instead, the voice of the book is muted, almost quiet, consciously suggesting the formally archaic sound of the King James Bible, the voice of a man struggling with his power and his conscience for the proper measure of humility.

''Each day I came to understand a little more of why the Lord has chosen me,'' Mr. Mailer wrote. ''I could see how my Father's patience would be tried with His creation. We consumed His charity and kept repeating our sins.''

In other words, Mr. Mailer's Christ sounds more like traditional Christ than traditional Mailer.

Church officials have not weighed in on the book as yet -- ''We don't have a comment at this time,'' said the Rev. Paul Keenan, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York -- though reviewers have. Publishers Weekly lauded the book as ''some sort of literary miracle,'' but in spite of Mr. Mailer's concessions to the style and point of view of the Son of God, many other critics were not persuaded to forgive the author his trespasses.

''It seems trite to dump on Mailer for having such a manifestly batty idea as retelling the story of Jesus with the son as first-person narrator,'' David Gates wrote in Newsweek. ''When Mailer's gone wrong before, it's either by overreaching or plotting. In this book he does both.''

Mr. Mailer actually wanted the book published anonymously, but with an announcement that the author's identity would be revealed three months after publication, so that it could be reviewed without his baggage. Mr. Mailer said the plan was rejected by Random House, however, after the storm caused by a previous Anonymous, Joe Klein, who had lied to keep his authorship of the Random House book, ''Primary Colors,'' secret. (Jason Epstein, Mr. Mailer's editor, said that was not the reason. ''It just didn't make any sense to me,'' Mr. Epstein said of keeping Mr. Mailer anonymous.)

''The book will get a fair share of bad reviews,'' Mr. Mailer said, ''but that I take for granted. I call a fair share between 65 percent and 75 percent bad reviews.''

He added: ''There's an irritation factor I'm presuming. The 'How dare he!' It's very much present in literary people.''

In spite of his seasoned shrug, Mr. Mailer said he was angry at The New York Times, not so much for publishing a negative review, by Michiko Kakutani, but for doing so weeks before the official publication date. Such a treatment of his work, he said, unfairly sets the tone for reviews to come, and he was doubly upset because he has made this complaint to The Times before.

John Darnton, The Times's culture editor, said that although the review was published early, the book was already in bookstores, and that Random House, which was already advertising the book, had called The Times to acknowledge that the book was ahead of schedule.

Mr. Mailer said one reason he wrote the book was that after re-reading the New Testament, he was struck by how insufficient it was as literature.

''I found Jesus in the New Testament to be not available,'' he said, ''not present as a human being very much. The lines in the New Testament are exceptional, the great lines, and Jesus comes alive as a God with the great lines, but as a man he doesn't come alive at all.''

''The narrative has become the spiritual or psychological keel of Western civilization,'' he continued, ''and no one really knows it because no one goes near the story. It is the greatest story ever told, and I thought there are easily 100 novelists in the world who could have done a better job, and I'm one of them, so I thought, I'm going to do this.''

(Actually, asked a bit later to rate himself, Mr. Mailer said he was one of the top five novelists in America, naming as the others Philip Roth, Saul Bellow, John Updike and one other person whom he would not name ''so that all manner of men and women don't get angry.'')

This kind of talk raises a number of questions, among which would be this: After the greatest story ever told, what is there to do for an encore?

Mr. Mailer laughed. He could not say, really.

''Talking about what you're going to do, in my case, has proved a very bad idea,'' he said. ''Years ago I promised to hit the longest ball in the history of American letters, and on and on.'' Nonetheless, he does know what his next book is.

Next year, 50 years after the publication of his first novel, ''The Naked and the Dead,'' Mr. Mailer will turn 75. ''Those are two nice numbers,'' he said. ''They commemorate each other somehow.''

Random House will commemorate them by publishing a Mailer retrospective volume, maybe 1,500 pages of Mr. Mailer's own selections of his best writing, ''provided he delivers it on time,'' Mr. Epstein said.

Perfect. What could be more appropriate after a fresh look at God's work than a fresh look at his own?

Photo: Norman Mailer says Christ never comes alive as a person in the New Testament. He tried to remedy that in his new book. (Edward Keating/The New York Times) Chart/Photo: ''First Person Singular'' From ''The Gospel According to the Son,'' by Norman Mailer (Random House, 1997): In my dream on this night, I heard one angel say: ''For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. Whoever believes in Him shall have everlasting life. For God did not send His son to condemn the world but to save it.'' How I hoped that the angel spoke truth! For then I would be like a light sent into the world. Yet men seemed to love darkness more than light. I awoke, then, in confusion. For I did not know whether I was here to save the world or to be condemned by the world. Each night I heard a command in my sleep, but the voice was my own; it was there to tell me that I must leave these lands where people waited to touch my garment an go instead among the proud of Jerusalem: I must enter the halls of the Great Temple, even if my days would then be numbered by the fingers on one hand. (pg. B1)

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/24/nyregion/yes-his-new-book-is-biblical-but-don-t-call-him-god.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2





The Gospel According to the Son

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com Review
In the two millennia since Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote their separate biographies of Jesus, only a handful of other authors have attempted renditions--Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, and D. H. Lawrence have tried their hands at it; scholars E. P. Sanders and Raymond Brown have produced academic treatises on the historical Jesus. Perhaps the best-known fictional account of the life of Jesus is Nikos Kazantzakis's The Last Temptation of Christ, which explores the Son of Man's all-too-human side. Norman Mailer joins these ranks with The Gospel According to the Son.
Not content to chronicle Jesus' life in the form of an apocryphal gospel, Mailer has the chutzpah to crawl inside his title character's head and tell the story from the first-person point of view. Here we get the Prince of Peace's personal account of his temptation by Satan, his three-year ministry, and his agony on the cross. Mailer presents an entirely new kind of passion play, one that remains faithful to the shape of Jesus' life as outlined in the gospels, while daring to imagine the inner life of this most elusive historical figure. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal
This novel is exactly what it sounds like: the gospel story retold from Christ's point of view. Although Mailer treats his New Testament sources with respect, Jesus turns out to be just the sort of character one would expect to find in a Norman Mailer novel. He is embarrassed by his Jewish mother and complains that God the Father barely speaks to him. He questions his success in healing the sick and struggles with his growing celebrity. Worse, he waffles on crucial issues like voluntary poverty, alienating Judas and other hardcore revolutionaries. Of particular interest is the central role Mailer assigns to Satan. Jesus believes that God and Satan are equally matched and that neither one will ever get the upper hand. In short, Mailer has concocted a profoundly heretical "gnostic" gospel. The problem is that few readers will have much interest in Mailer's theology, and, taken simply as a novel, the book leaves much to be desired. Recommended mainly for comprehensive collections of Mailer's work.
-?Edward B. St. John, Loyola Law Sch., Los Angeles
Copyright 1997 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.



http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Son-Novel/dp/0345434080







Mailer, the Great I Am

Norman Mailer's latest work is a life of Christ - told in the first person. If the reaction he hopes for is outrage, he's right. But if he thinks he's original, he's much mistaken. By Boyd Tonkin



In the days before New York taxis were piloted by Russians or Koreans, a critic waggishly remarked that Norman Mailer wrote the sort of books that cab drivers would write - if they could write. He had a point. It was 49 years ago that the Brooklyn bruiser (now 73) launched a career full of affronts and outrages with his wartime epic The Naked and the Dead. Since then, his fiction and non-fiction has punched its way from Hollywood to the CIA the Apollo moonshots to Lee Harvey Oswald. Even Picasso (the subject of a recent prurient slice of biography) has more than his fair share of cabbie appeal.

Now, thanks to a brief note in the spring catalogue from Random House, New York, we know that Mailer has picked the toughest bout of the lot. The forthcoming Gospel According to the Son - at 225 pages, a mere telegram by his standards - consists of a first-person narrative by Jesus in a tone its author describes as "neither pious nor satirical". Already, the holy warriors are loading their biggest guns. And Mailer will no doubt relish every skirmish. He used to hang out with boxing champs, and once unwisely joined a bar-room brawl while in the company of a peaceable heavyweight. "I reckon that fighters should stick to fightin'", the boxer gently counselled him, "and writers should stick to writin'." Some hope.

More than 200 hundred years ago, the Enlightenment brought historical study of Bible stories out of the shadows of heresy. Probably the first version of Christ's life published from a non-dogmatic viewpoint came from the scholar Reimarus (1694-1768). Since then, authors have been tempted by the chance to wed these extraordinary tales to the secular forms of the novel, the biography and (during this century) the cinema. Creative minds would let their imagination play over Moses, or Joseph, or even Jesus, and the fury of the orthodox would fall on them - right up to the bemused councils who banned Monty Python's Life of Brian.

Thanks to the tricky doctrine of the Trinity, dramatisations of the Son have proved more troublesome than versions of the Father. And the Old Testament itself abounds with startling scenes of God Behaving Badly. It's hard to think of any post-Biblical Almighty who acts with less conventional pomp than the riddling old grouch who answers Job out of the whirlwind like a sulky retired builder ("Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?"). Since then, the Ancient of Days has turned up in many semi-comic guises. They stretch from the tetchy gaffer of the medieval mystery plays (memorably acted by Brian Glover in Bill Bryden's National Theatre cycle) to the wiseacre in golfing garb played by veteran comic George Burns in Carl Reiner's 1977 film Oh God!

But as Mailer will discover, with the Second Person of the Trinity, the routine scarcely ever alters. In their introduction to a new Oxford World's Classics edition of the King James Bible, Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett recall the "instant scandal and controversy" caused in 1846 by the English translation of a book that painted a portrait of Jesus that, though sympathetic, "was wholly human and non-supernatural". The work was David Friedrich Strauss's Life of Jesus and the translator was a young intellectual called Mary Ann Evans. She would soon adopt a prudent male pen-name: George Eliot. At this period, the Cambridge theology examiners could still show just what they thought of all this new-fangled sceptical scholarship by asking candidates (as they did in 1848) to "Give the date of the Deluge" . The correct answer? 2348 BC, of course.

Strauss's version of Jesus probably moved further away from church dogma than the Nikos Kazantzakis novel that Martin Scorsese adapted in his Last Temptation of Christ. In theological terms, the sexual and domestic fantasies that landed Scorsese's 1988 film in hellishly hot water merely confirmed that Christ was entirely human as well as entirely divine. Christian orthodoxy has accepted that point since the fourth century AD at least.

Oddly, none of the instant reactions to the news of Mailer's book has registered that a comparable novel already exists. In 1991, the distinguished Portuguese writer Jose Saramago (tipped several times for the Nobel Prize) published his Gospel According to Jesus Christ. Although framed as a third- person narrative, Saramago's take on The Greatest Story Ever Told aims, like Mailer, to escape both piety and mockery to achieve a fully-fledged and challenging reality.

Saramago echoes Kazantzakis and Scorsese as his Jesus, in the years before his ministry, sets up house with Mary Magdalene. (The notion of a long- term liaison with the Magdalene has deep roots in ancient heresy and also turns up in Barbara Thiering's interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls - Jesus the Man.) Saramago's Gospel doesn't stand alone in recent literature. The Four Wise Men by French novelist Michel Tournier poses questions of history and belief in a spirit that rises above dogma and debunking. Clearly, the US clergy and laity who will agitate against Mailer know little and care less about what goes on among writers of decadent Catholic Europe.

So Mailer joins a long roll-call of seekers, doubters and dreamers. With the New Testament, modern research has stimulated fresh tellings of the ancient tales by paying attention to the Gospels as an ill-matched set of contradictory tales. Here, after all, are four sketchy narratives mostly composed from hearsay during the second half of the first century AD, and written in the low-status Koine Greek of Eastern Mediterranean ports - the equivalent of Estuary English, if you like.

We now know (as does Mailer) that the four narratives that made it into the Christian canon were far from unique. In 1946, at Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt, the so-called "Gnostic" gospels came to light. These were the holy texts used by isolated communities who mixed knowledge of Jesus's teaching with elements of Platonic and Oriental creeds. They include the Gospel of Truth, the Everlasting Gospel, the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas - which has curious parallels with Mailer's project, as it contains the sayings of Jesus without any intervening narrative.

It's worth reflecting that the sheer number of these separate stories tends to disprove the view (now revived by A N Wilson's life of Paul) that Jesus in his time rated as one small-time Jewish apocalyptic preacher among a hundred others. For a minor-league Galilean exorcist, he seems to have had a pretty busy press agent. He even appears in the great history of his age composed by the ambiguously pro-Roman Jewish leader Joseph Ben David (Flavius Josephus) - though most scholars now think that these passages were snuck into Josephus' text by later Christian apologists.

Whatever ecclesiastical flak Mailer has to catch, he is unlikely to finish up in court for his pains. The US Constitution, remember, was devised by a clique of deistical freemasons who just about believed in God but certainly didn't think that fighting over Him was any sort of pastime for a gentleman. Here, the common law of blasphemy still protects, not faith in general and not Christianity in particular, but merely "the formulas of the Church of England as by laws established" . Under that law, Gay News editor Denis Lemon went to jail in the 1970s for publishing a poetic fantasy about Christ on the cross by James Kirkup. And, within the past few months, film director Nigel Wingrove has lost his appeal to the European Court of Human Rights against the refusal to certificate his erotic video about Saint Teresa of Avila, Visions of Ecstasy.

So Mailer's future foes may have more of a chance to (as it were) nail him in Britain than the States. Whatever the fate of the Son's Gospel, it seems a shame that critics aren't prepared to wait for the tale before they curse the teller. After all, what sort of scurrilous film about the life of Christ would you expect from a promiscuously gay Marxist atheist who was eventually murdered by a rent-boy? What we got (thank heavens) was Pier Paolo Pasolini's intensely beautiful and moving Gospel According to Saint Matthew, a work so luminously reverent that it could push Professor Richard Dawkins straight into the nearest pew. "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Now who was it who said that?



http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mailer-the-great-i-am-1280646.html





The Gospel According to the Son
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Gospel According to the Son is a 1999 novel by Norman Mailer. It purports to be the story of Jesus Christ, told autobiographically. [1]



The novel employs first person story-telling, employing the perspective of Jesus. It stays nearly entirely true to the text of the four canonical gospels. Jesus tells his own story, from his birth to a teen-aged virgin named Mary to his execution by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans. Just as in the gospels, he is resurrected from the dead, and ascends to heaven.



Critical reception

Critical response to Mailer's novel was mixed. Jack Miles, writing for Commonweal, found the book "a quiet, sweet, almost wan little book, a kindly offering from a New York Jew to his wife's Bible Belt family." He noted that there was "something undeniably impressive about the restraint" of the style that Mailer undertook in composing the novel. He concluded that the novel was neither one of Mailer's best works, nor would it stand out amongst the bibliography of books inspired by the life of Christ, but that it had received unfairly harsh reviews from other critics.[2]

Critics such as Reynolds Price, writing for the New York Times, pointed to a "lack of inventiveness", based upon the fact that Mailer took so few liberties with the biblical text.

David Gelernter, writing for the National Review, cited the "sheer arrogance" of the very premise of Mailer's book. Yet he went on to agree with Miles that much of the criticism of the book had been "unfair." Gelernter called the book "strikingly orthodox" in its basic view of the character of Christ.[3]

Mailer had largely anticipated some of the savage reviews he would receive for the book. He noted in an interview with Bruce Weber of the New York Times, "The book will get a fair share of bad reviews, but that I take for granted. I call a fair share between 65 percent and 75 percent bad reviews."[4]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_According_to_the_Son

2009/04/14


PAUL FRYER


BIOGRAPHY

Paul Fryer lives and works in London, England. He studied art briefly at the Leeds College Of Art in the 1980s but never did a degree in the subject, electing instead to be an electropop singer, and then to graduate as a transvestite DJ. In the early 90's he was instrumental in the creation of the widely acclaimed Art-based clubs The Kit Cat Club and Vague, also in Leeds where, for reasons that are not entirely clear, he stayed until 1996.
Since moving to London he has designed books and other printed material for several artists, fashion houses and record labels as well as working as technical consultant for several contemporary artists. During this period he wrote a book of poetry, Don't Be So..., which was illustrated by Damien Hirst and published by Trolley Books in 2001.

He recently left the Italian house Fendi after 5 years as musical director. His critically acclaimed multimedia show Electronic Elvis was successfully performed at several London venues in 2003 & 2005 and was released on vinyl in 2005.
He has shown at various shows and galleries including Lead By The Nose, Livestock Market, 1996; The Quick And The Dead, Leeds City Art Gallery, 1998; Sleight of Hand, Transposition, Curtain Rd 1999; 2001 A Space Oddity, James Birch, A22 Gallery 2001; The Courtauld Collection Show 2002; The BBC4 Launch, Old Saatchi Gallery, 2002; The Ark, T1+2, 2005; New Gothic, Tate Britain February 2006.
His solo shows so far include: Carpe Noctum, Trolley Gallery, 2005; Petit Mal, Masonic Temple (in association with Kirsty Stubbs Gallery), 2006; Radiations, Julius Werner Berlin, 2006.
His current solo show is Potential & Ground



http://www.paulfryer.net/paulFbiog.html

Jesus sent to the electric chair and not the Cross


Thursday, April 09, 2009
Jesus sent to the electric chair and not the Cross



Frankreich: Proteste gegen Jesus auf elektrischem Stuhl « DiePresse.com

France: Protests against Jesus in electric chair

A sculpture by British artist Paul Fryer shows Jesus in the electric chair. It is on display in the French town of Gap. The Bishop of Gap defends the work of art.

Crown of thorns, long hair, beard, a wound in the side, arms, feet and hands pierced, a downward sloping head: A picture of Jesus which can be seen in every church. But the sculpture "Pieta" by British artist Paul Fryer shows Jesus in this well known pose not on the Cross, but in the electric chair. Since the weekend the artwork can be seen in the Cathedral of Gap in the French Alps - and has guaranteed controversy, reported Kathpress. Bishop Jean-Michel di Falco has already received protest letters against the sculpture, the Paris newspaper Le Figaro reports.

Bishop: The sculpture is not scandalous

Di Falco, however, is a proponent of the "Pieta". If Jesus had been sentenced today, he would have to reckon with the electric chair or other barbaric methods of execution, says the bishop. Scandalous is therefore "not Jesus in the electric chair, but the indifference to his crucifixion."

The artwork belongs to the collection of the French entrepreneur François Pinault, who loaned it to the Diocese of Gap for Holy Week. Whether the work is then to be shown in a museum or a church is not yet decided, the TV station "France3" reported.
Cathcon: the same Bishop criticised the Pope over condoms so no wonder he ventures on the path of fideism where the historical reality represented by the wood of the Cross no longer matters in our Redemption.

http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2009/04/jesus-sent-to-electric-chair-and-not.html
*************************************************************

New Testament professor D.A. Carson on the scandal of the cross (Cross and Christian Ministry):

What would you think if a woman came to work wearing earrings stamped with an image of the mushroom cloud of the atomic bomb dropped over Hiroshima?

What would you think of a church buidling adorned with a fresco of the massed graves at Auschwitz?

Both visions are grotesque. They are not only intrinsically abhorrent, but they are shocking because of powerful cultural associations.

The same sort of shocked horror was associated with the cross and crucifixion in the first century. Apart from the emperor’ explicit sanction, no Roman citizen could be put to death by this means. Crucifixion was reserved for slaves, aliens, barbarians. Many thought it was not something to be talked about in polite company. Quite apart from the wretched torture inflicted on those who were executed by hanging from a cross, the cultural associations conjured up images of evil, corruption, abysmal rejection.

Yet today, crosses adorn our buildings and letterheads, grace our bishops, shine from lapels, and dangle from our ears–and no one is scandalized. It is this cultural distance from the first century that makes it so hard for us to feel the compelling irony of 1 Corinthians 1:18: “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

____________________________________





http://oneresolve.wordpress.com/