[N8 v2.0]

Midnight Christianity Etiquette Guide

As we welcome former participants of Midnight Insanity’s screenings of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Midnight Christianity would like to offer the following tips to properly enjoy our late-night showings of The Passion of the Christ. First, anyone can dress up as Roman soldiers, Hebrew high holy men, peasants, lost boys and most disciples, but you MUST audition for main roles such as Pontius Pilate, high priest Caiphas, Claudia Procles, the Marys (Magdalene and mother), Peter, Judas, the devil and, of course, Jesus. Be aware that final selection of the overly flamboyant King Herod will be done by secret ballot due to the high number of Midnight Insanity applicants.

ACCEPTABLE PROPS TO THROW AT THE SCREEN: Moonpies (whenever the full moon is shown—and it’s shown a lot), pennies (whenever Judas’ 30 pieces of silver hit the ground), rice (to symbolize the maggot slithering into the devil’s nostril), rubber snakes (the devil’s serpent that crawls toward Jesus) and Avon Ruby Rogue No. 5 lipstick (when blood covers Mary’s lips after she kisses Christ’s foot).

ACCEPTABLE RESPONSES TO SHOUT AT THE SCREEN: The "Trojan Man" theme from the popular condom commercial (whenever Roman soldiers appear), "Nice mount!" (whenever the high ground where Jesus gave a sermon and was crucified is shown), "HONDA!" (after Jesus says, "I lay down of my own accord"), "PRIEST!" (after anyone onscreen yells, "Judas!"), and "I can see my house from here" (right as Jesus’ cross is pulled upright).

UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSES TO SHOUT AT THE SCREEN: "Run, Forrest, Run" (when Peter darts into the forest to avoid capture), "KRAMER!" (when a Joseph the Beloved bursts through Mary’s door) and "He’s not just the owner of Hair Club for Men—he’s a member!" (when King Herod puts on his wig). Also, absolutely NO humming "Stuck in the Middle With You" after the ear of Caiphas’ servent is lopped off or "If I Had a Hammer" when nails are driven into Christ.

PROGRAM CHANGE: Due to overuse caused by the many instances in which Jesus is whipped, we will no longer herald each strike with "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" Instead, we’ll confine ourselves to yelling, "That’s gonna leave a mark"—but ONLY during the half dozen or so times that the sight of squirting blood and flesh being torn from Jesus’ torso is accompanied by squishy sounds.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Jesus Demands Creative Control Over Next Movie
TO News | 3 Mar 04 | Staff Writer

HOLLYWOOD, CA—After watching Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ Monday, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ announced that He will demand creative control over the next film based on His life.

"I never should have given Mel Gibson so much license," said Christ, the Son of God. "I don't like to criticize a member of the flock, but that close-up of the nails being pounded into My wrists—that was just bad."

Our Lord did not limit His criticisms to Gibson's Passion; He expressed frustration with historical inaccuracies in numerous film adaptations of His life.

"There have been a lot of films based on My life, and pretty much all of them have gotten it wrong," Christ said. "Just look at Godspell—what the heck was going on there? It's time I reclaim My image."

Christ said He considered returning to the physical world to make an accurate film depiction of His life for years, but seeing The Passion prompted Him to finally descend from heaven, meet with His agent Ronald Thatcher, and demand that He be attached as a producer on any future projects.

"Ron has a history of telling Me that the filmmakers 'totally understand' the Word Of God, and that the project is going to be 'fabulous,'" Christ said. "But when it comes out, it's all wrong, and Ron claims everything fell apart in post-production. At that point, there's nothing left for Me to do but say, 'Okay, fine. I forgive you all.' Well, next time, I'll be shepherding the project through from casting to final edit to marketing."

Describing one of His biggest complaints, Christ said that no film about His life has ever "made the apostles pop."

"In The Greatest Story Ever Told, the 12 are basically interchangeable," Christ said. "Directors get the piety, but they don't bring out the personalities behind the agape love. Some of those guys were real cut-ups, you know. Simon Peter could make you laugh until you cried tears of blood."

In order to bring these and other truths to light, Christ teamed up with screenwriter Ron Bass, who wrote both Snow Falling On Cedars and My Best Friend's Wedding. The two have been co-writing a high-concept script, temporarily called Untitled Jesus Project.

"We're still hammering out the treatment, but I'm really excited about where it's headed," Christ said. "It really beefs up My relationship with John the Baptist, something all of the other movies missed. They always put in the beheading, but they leave out the quiet moments when John and I would hang out, eat locusts and honey, and talk about the redemption of Man. I think our friendship will really resonate with a lot of viewers."

Christ said He is also working on a heist film based loosely on the loaves-and-the-fishes incident, but that the project is currently stuck in development.

"I tend to have problems pitching to studio executives," Christ said. "Last week, I appeared in a vision before a D-girl at Sony, and I said, 'Be not afraid, for I am Jesus—I have written a treatment and Matthew McConaughey is interested in the role of Herod.' Apparently, she was a little freaked-out by the vision and she ended up passing on the idea. Ron said that next time I should just schedule a lunch meeting like everyone else."

Returning to film adaptations about His life and Word, Christ said some inaccuracies can be traced back to the source material, the New Testament.

"Remember, at the time the Good Book was written, I was running around saving souls like a madman," Christ said. "I couldn't focus on a writing project, too. I basically gave My team of writers the broad strokes and hoped inspiration would fill in the cracks. Now, I'm not saying the New Testament isn't good—it is. It's great! But by the time I got around to reading the galleys, the monks had already finished the first printing."

The Lord Jesus did have positive things to say about Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation Of Christ.

"Not only is Marty a fantastic director, but the story isn't the same old, same old," Jesus said. "It's like The Gospel of Mark filtered through an episode of The Twilight Zone. I love it. My one problem is with the casting of Willem Dafoe. He's good, but I think John Turturro would have made a better Me."

In spite of His love for Scorsese, Christ said He has no plans to simply make "the next Last Temptation."

"My movie about My life will be the greatest movie ever shown," Christ said. "It should be the last Word on Me. No more animated versions, no more musicals, and no more movies where the scourging scene is so violent, you could put it in Fangoria. I mean, yes, being crucified is very painful. But I can't see devoting more than, say, three minutes of film to it."

Jesus added: "My version will have it all: drama, laughter, a spiritual message, and a couple of twists that will surprise even the most devout. The best part is that it'll be 100 percent accurate."

Continued Christ: "Even with the top-notch screenplay Ron and I are writing, I'll still need a great director to make the script shine. Unfortunately, Gore Verbinski is already committed to Pirates Of The Caribbean 2. If only he'd see that this movie is truly the career path for the righteous, I'd be able to get a firm commitment from Johnny Depp, too. Let us pray."

 

[llkoolkeg]

And in a different vein...

 

[golgiaparatus]

You know what gets me about this movie... I have 2 friends (for4 example, I have spoken with a few people that really take this view) that are besically new christians... i.e. they just started going to church, are really into the community of it all yada yada yada... anyway, they went to see the movie and I asked them about it... they said all this stuff about how it was so real and so belevable and they were so sad and hurt when they left the movie/felt guilty etc etc. I saked them, "you kow this is Gibsons interpretatioin, not actual reality right?"... they were like "NO, thats exactly the way it happened" they actually were really standing behind the movie as, complete reality.

 

[Skookum]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
You know what gets me about this movie... I have 2 friends (for4 example, I have spoken with a few people that really take this view) that are besically new christians... i.e. they just started going to church, are really into the community of it all yada yada yada... anyway, they went to see the movie and I asked them about it... they said all this stuff about how it was so real and so belevable and they were so sad and hurt when they left the movie/felt guilty etc etc. I saked them, "you kow this is Gibsons interpretatioin, not actual reality right?"... they were like "NO, thats exactly the way it happened" they actually were really standing behind the movie as, complete reality.

Non-Believer Blasphemer!!!

I saw the flick it was pretty good, all the hoopla aside. I'm really looking forward to the sequel Jesus Vs. Buddha. Should be a barn burner.:devil:

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
You know what gets me about this movie... I have 2 friends (for4 example, I have spoken with a few people that really take this view) that are besically new christians... i.e. they just started going to church, are really into the community of it all yada yada yada... anyway, they went to see the movie and I asked them about it... they said all this stuff about how it was so real and so belevable and they were so sad and hurt when they left the movie/felt guilty etc etc. I saked them, "you kow this is Gibsons interpretatioin, not actual reality right?"... they were like "NO, thats exactly the way it happened" they actually were really standing behind the movie as, complete reality.

I have seen the movie, and I too left the movie feeling very speechless. Being a Christian seeing graphically what happened (or a realistic/historic "interpretation" of what happened) was really powerful to me. One thing that was powerful to me was listening to Jesus at the Last Supper and hearing the actor say the Text in Aramaic. I thought that was very cool.

There were parts that some "artistic" license was taken, and I'm cool with that, it is a movie. I do not however believe that the movie is "exactly" how it was. I do think that this movie is as close to historic and Biblically accurate depiction as I have seen in any of the "Jesus movies" prior to this one.

Bless your little friends hearts, they mean well, but being young in the faith, it's easy sometimes to "get off track".

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
One thing that was powerful to me was listening to Jesus at the Last Supper and hearing the actor say the Text in Aramaic. I thought that was very cool.

Dude, it's a gimmick! Probably would make bugger all sense to anyone who was actually there. Might as well have been in Welsh.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
You know what gets me about this movie... I have 2 friends (for4 example, I have spoken with a few people that really take this view) that are besically new christians... i.e. they just started going to church, are really into the community of it all yada yada yada... anyway, they went to see the movie and I asked them about it... they said all this stuff about how it was so real and so belevable and they were so sad and hurt when they left the movie/felt guilty etc etc. I saked them, "you kow this is Gibsons interpretatioin, not actual reality right?"... they were like "NO, thats exactly the way it happened" they actually were really standing behind the movie as, complete reality.

i'm confused.
outside of artistic license, is there a part (or parts) of the flick which stray from gospel? (For an example, charlize theron's character in Monster not being raped in real life, but most likely paying homage to her [charlize] mother's attack by her father, who she [mom] shot in response)

or do you just choose to glibly dismiss both the gospel & mel's work?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by fluff
Dude, it's a gimmick! Probably would make bugger all sense to anyone who was actually there. Might as well have been in Welsh.

A gimmick? How so? To make it seem more "real"?

Without looking at the subtitles I actually understood a little of it.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
A gimmick? How so? To make it seem more "real"?

Without looking at the subtitles I actually understood a little of it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gimmick ['gýmýk]
noun
1 something designed to attract extra attention, interest, or publicity

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need I say more?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Hey the subtitle thingy worked for Crouching Dragon movie which about as factual as The Passion...

 

[Skookum]

Originally posted by N8
Hey the subtitle thingy worked for Crouching Dragon movie which about as factual as The Passion...

Now THAT was an great movie..... sorry mel.....

 

[fluff]

Maybe they should have filmed it on parchment?

 

[LordOpie]

I finally saw Passion of the Christ. My theater had a commercial before hand that was a bit questionable... Passion of the Chrysler -- WWJD (What Would Jesus Drive)? A PT Cruiser of course!



:devil:

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i'm confused.
outside of artistic license, is there a part (or parts) of the flick which stray from gospel? (For an example, charlize theron's character in Monster not being raped in real life, but most likely paying homage to her [charlize] mother's attack by her father, who she [mom] shot in response)

or do you just choose to glibly dismiss both the gospel & mel's work?

I hold them both as what they are...

1. The gospel - A book that is a collection of historically based stories written by several men with their own interpretations, opinions, agendas, and embellishments... interpreted and translated by several more men.

2. The Passion - A hollywood movie based on the book and directed buy a VERY opinionated guy, that also has his own interpretations, and embellishments.

Anyway, no, I dont completely dismiss either one, however I do not take them as complete historical perfection and I think that anyone who is convinced of that they are a mirror image of what exactly happened is fooling themselves (Im not just talking about the part depicted in the Passion, Im talking about all of it).

I think this is why I dont like to go to most churches... because they preach the Bible as historical perfection and have no problem with their patrons walking away thinking and preaching it as exactly that.

Personally I see the Bible as a beautiful, interesting, entertaining book that in a round-about way points out many extremely valuable moral principles and that is a wonderful thing I just wish more christians would remember (I believe they tend to let themselves forget) what it is that they are using as the lone istrument to define and rigidly defend their beliefs and their opinions. God did not write the bible, Man did. Man may have been inspired by god to write it, but as we know, no matter how pure a man's intention he is still falliable(sp) and is the master of drama (hence man's huge tendancy towards embellishment).

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Anyway, no, I dont completely dismiss either one, however I do not take them as complete historical perfection and I think that anyone who is convinced of that they are a mirror image of what exactly happened is fooling themselves (Im not just talking about the part depicted in the Passion, Im talking about all of it).

I think this is why I dont like to go to most churches... because they preach the Bible as historical perfection and have no problem with their patrons walking away thinking and preaching it as exactly that.

I personally believe that the event documented in the Scriptures are historically accurate, but I say that as a matter of faith.

I compare the faith I have in the Scriptures to the faith that some have in the theory of evolution (and no I don't want to start that debate). Evolution has some "blank spots" that are filled in with theory, and that's fine. But it takes a measure of faith to believe that theory to be "true".

I'll be the first to admit that events like the parting of the Red Sea is pretty amazing and there is not much evidence to support that event. I beleive it though, not because of some evidence but because of faith.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
I personally believe that the event documented in the Scriptures are historically accurate, but I say that as a matter of faith.

You believe the events of the bible are historically accurate because of your faith that is based on those same stories... Sorry couldn't help myself.

I believe that the stories in the bible did take place... just not in the exact same way that they are written, I think they are heavily embellished, by people that had a very primitive understanding of the things around them. Furthermore I recognise the bible as what it is, its a book written by man, passed down through the generations and transcribed millions of times by falliable men.

Who know what happened to the stories or what was changed or lost and replaced during this time.

People blindly take these stories at face value without even considering what the stories had to go through to get to their current form, not to mention that they were written by fallable men.

Im not saying throw away your faith, I'm just saying dont blindly take a story at face value just because it says "the bible", recognise it as what it is and go from there.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
You believe the events of the bible are historically accurate because of your faith that is based on those same stories... Sorry couldn't help myself.

seems there's a chicken & egg thing going on here. But, this comment is not for me.

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
I believe that the stories in the bible did take place... just not in the exact same way that they are written, I think they are heavily embellished, by people that had a very primitive understanding of the things around them.

based upon what research, exactly? As you are amazed at the blind faith of a christian, i also am amazed at your blind faith that it's wrong, which is your perfect right. I won't waste your time nor mine trying to convince you of what you do or don't believe, but please demonstrate you have truly put forth serious effort about such a matter taken so seriously by so many.

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Furthermore I recognise the bible as what it is, its a book written by man, passed down through the generations and transcribed millions of times by falliable men.

Who know what happened to the stories or what was changed or lost and replaced during this time.

People blindly take these stories at face value without even considering what the stories had to go through to get to their current form, not to mention that they were written by fallable men.

for benefit of all here, i'll dig up what the procedures is/are for translating scripture. I think you'll find it pretty thorough & anything but trivial.

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Im not saying throw away your faith, I'm just saying dont blindly take a story at face value just because it says "the bible", recognise it as what it is and go from there.

good, because i haven't seen a convincing alternative. And rest assured, i would have to have one to abandon this one.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
People blindly take these stories at face value without even considering what the stories had to go through to get to their current form, not to mention that they were written by fallable men.

I don't take them blindly, I believe what I believe after extensive research in to the Scriptures. I'm not just talking "King James" version here, I'm talking the Greek Old Testament (the oldest manuscripts around date back to 100-50 BC), the dead sea scrolls (which date any where from 65BC to about 50AD). Not only "Christian" stuff, but I study the Torah, and the Talmud (which is the Oral Torah written down), and the writing of Josephus, a Jewish historian (interestingly no one questions his writings). All of these texts (some of them "independant") confirm the Scriptures.

So I'm not some mindless convert blindly going on with the herd mentality, or what some preacher told me was the truth. My pastor and I actually disagree on some of the translations and how they are interpreted.

Have you ever researched how the Jews wrote the Scriptures? The Scribes had a very through procedure for making copies of the Scriptures, there was no "adding" any thoughts or ideas when they were copied. The texts we considered so sacred that you could not touch the words in the scroll, if the Jews were that fanatical about that then how fanatical were they about writing those words? Actually, I have more historical "faith" in the Old Testament than I do in the New (to some extent).

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Im not saying throw away your faith, I'm just saying dont blindly take a story at face value just because it says "the bible", recognise it as what it is and go from there.

I have studied the history of how we got our current Bible. I have faith in it because of the research I have done and my faith.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by $tinkle
Based upon what research, exactly? As you are amazed at the blind faith of a christian, i also am amazed at your blind faith that it's wrong, which is your perfect right.

John Brown University required courses:
- Old Testament 101 (history class, included much Egyptian history as well)
- New Testament 101 (history class)
- Theology 101 (philisophical class)
- Christian Life (useless class)
Even the professors at the evangelical college that I attended said that it was presumptuous and one would be ignorant to take the bible at face value.

But again, that doesnt mean throw away your faith, it just means look deeper than just what you read, actually think about what you believe.

Also posted by $tinkle
for benefit of all here, i'll dig up what the procedures is/are for translating scripture. I think you'll find it pretty thorough & anything but trivial.

Oh yeah... Dont forget to go back and touch on all the research done on the mesopetamian culture late in the 1800s where a lot of the Idea of Yahweh actually originated and also hit on a few of the great revisions... If I remember correctly the first and second revision are the real nail-biters.

Yeah, dont forget all the really crucial stuff that leads up to the writing and the translation/interpretation of the actual original script that the bible (back in the early 1900s) was then made of