This person who writes in regards to Mel Gibsons desire to make a movie about Christ irritates me. Mel Gibson, a devout Catholic, is one of my favorite actors, and I hope that he will portray Christ in a manner befitting a Man who was God on earth. I’m rather curious to see the result, and Gibson’s reputation in my mind in on the line.

But back to my original point, which is Dr. Ravitch’s complaint that Christians have no foundation for thier beliefs historically, that there is no first hand historical basis for Jesus, and that we are, at least from what I can gather from his article, a bunch of foolish and obviously blind following…

Well… I suppose that the Apostles don’t count as first hand biographical accounts… or do they? I mean, they walked and talked with Him, for like three or so years didn’t they? And how bout the hundreds of people that saw Christ after His ressurection and were there to verify the accounts?

No basis for a historical Jesus… <shakes head in wonder and sad disbelief> We, the Church, have as much basis for a historical and thological Christ as anyone does of anything or any person who has ever lived.

Dr. Ravitch has so graciously posted his email address on the website, just in case anyone wanted to comment on his article. Here it is, just in case you were as insulted as I was. (ravitchn@bellsouth.net)

Share.

About Author

I have been writing on the web since 2000. I am a christian , a photographer, an occasional poet, a recovering dreamer, an occasional philosopher, a software developer, an autodidact, and i resemble the INFP personality type.

2 Comments

  1. Mel Gibson’s an interesting man. I had no idea he was Catholic until a few months ago. It really puts some of the movies he’s done-We Were Soldiers, Signs, etc.-in a different light. Apparently he’s gotten some headlines recently by criticizing the Vatican after they refused to help him with his movie, or some such thing. Movie stars need to restrain themselves when talking to the press, imo.