Re all the reviewers outside the loop.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

As an ex EX EX Irish Roman Catholic Altar boy with clergy in the

family, I feel I have some perspective on the crucufixion and Mel's

movie.

First of all let me state that I do believe in Jesus but in a

Vedantist way, he was either a bhodisattva or perhaps a videha

mukta. Only another Mukta can know that for real. I don't want to

refute the stupidity and intellectual dishonesty of those that deny

his very existence--------for they know not what they do or write or

say.

I have read a lot on Jesus, in gnostic literature, some history

texts, Indian traditions and texts and the Koran. Yes and even in

Edgar Cayce, and before the intellectuals and debunkers scoff, Cayce

wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls stuff years before they were discovered.

He also is batting about a high average over 90%, so he is relevant

to those into spirituality. He says Jesus came out of the Essenic

movement, and they were into mysticism or what would be called

Kabbala today etc. They were based at Mt Karmel and Qumran and

followed the tradition of Melchizadek, Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha

althought there were different groups. The Sadduccee Priests

executed anyone who claimed anything like prophethood, and many

Essenes had been executed, not only Jesus. One is mentioned by Cayce

and appears in the later scrolls even, killed by the 'wicked

priests'. Pilate's wife was perhaps a secret follower of Jesus for

he cured her son of epilepsy, also she may have known Ruth's

husband. Ruth was the little sister of Jesus and married to a high

Roman official,who was a follower, but at the time of the

crucifixion they were in Rome. As a result of the crucufixion Pilate

was carpeted and recalled to Rome.

 

The cross is not an instrument of social control for the religions

or a threat, it is the opposite in fact. Gibson's movie would not be

understood by non Christians in the main, except those that saw it

like 'All Quiet on the Western Front', as a violent anti-violence

movie, which they both are. Indians would understand the Yogic

principle of atonement or paying off others karma in ones own body,

though. They would also well understand the resurrection. Death is a

relative term, Sri Sankara and others have left seeming dead bodies

and done other things.

 

The most surprising thing about this movie though, is the amount of

virulent unsubstantiated anti Christian prejudice it has revealed.

The ignorance of intellectual scoffers has been raised to new height

of bias and ignorance. I only hope it doesn't have an adverse or

reverse effect, among the less informed. It isn't the movie that is

the problem but those crying foul.

 

The other surprising thing in all the bad reviews is the

misunderstanding of the bloody violence. There seems to be an

extreme aversion to it, which is as bad as an attachment and reveals

underdevelopment. There was not even an attempt to explain or

understand the final scene of the resurrection, indication a lack of

subtely of mind in most detractors. There is no play without the

final scene--------ask Shakespeare.

 

The other thing that bothered me was the attempt to portray it as

anti semitic, a weak dangerous argument. If people were informed

they would know several things.

 

1. It was internecine strife, the Sadducees executing yet another

prophet, they had been persecuting Hebrews for 300 years.

If one were to read the New Testament the letters are to

the 'Hebrews', not Jews indicating a possible difference.

 

2. Today's Jews are a Religion not a race, and only a miniscule

amount could even trace their ancestry back to Palestine, so it

wasn't their ancestors involved in this crucifixion at all.

 

3. Saul of Tarsus raised the newly named, but long pre existing

Christianity to a world stage, unlike most of the other Essenic

groups.

 

As is most usual in the world ignorance is the danger, and its

exploitation by egotists for their own advantage....Om Namah

Sivaya...Tony.