Brazil's Catholic Church Sues Columbia Pictures For Destroying Jesus Statue In 2012... In Violation Of Its Copyright
from the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up dept
Sometimes you come across stories that are more bizarre than you could possibly imagine. The Hollywood Reporter points us to the news that the Catholic Church of Brazil is suing Columbia Pictures, claiming copyright infringement in last year's blockbuster 2012, because the movie depicts a famous statue of Jesus being destroyed. Brazil allows copyright on sculptures for life, plus seventy years, and the guy who made the statue (now a huge tourist attraction in Rio) died in 1961, meaning that the statue is still under copyright -- and the archdiocese claims to hold the copyright. It apparently turned down Columbia Pictures request to use it in the movie 2012 because the people there didn't like the idea of seeing the statue destroyed.Columbia Pictures still showed the statue getting destroyed -- and claims that it did get the proper permission... but from the estate of the sculptor, rather than the church. Apparently, everyone's negotiating this out, and the Church says it wants the movie studio to admit it "meant no offense." Of course, I'm sure the studio meant no offense, but it does make you wonder, yet again, why copyright law should prevent a statue from being shown in a movie. Not that Hollywood tends to be a big fan of fair use, but you would think that it would have a pretty strong claim to the idea that, even if the statue is covered by copyright, this particular use was not infringing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 2012, brazil, catholic church, copyright, movies, statue
Companies: catholic church, columbia pictures
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The studio may not have meant offense, but the director, Roland Emmerich, most certainly did. He did an interview around the time of the film's release (plus or minus a month), and went off on an anti-religion, anti-Catholic rant ( like the ones sure to appear from the extremists on this thread shortly).He's one of these "Organized religion is evil" people( putting him sqaurely in the corner of those ignoring the countless evil acts commited by the non-religous people since time began, but hey who needs logic right?). As to the actual laws, if the law of the country says life of creator+seventy years, then the Church may have a case. You can scream creative rights all you want, maybe he shouldn't intentionally try to attack people over their beliefs, and he won't find himself in this position. I hope he loses, and perhaps even has to pay damages. Good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criticism
> intentionally try to attack people over their beliefs
Ironically, if Emmerich actually *did* mean to offend, he has a better case than if he didn't. Criticism, parody and satire are well-known exceptions to copyright law. If Emmerich was using the image of the statue as a way of expressing his criticism of the Catholic religion, then no infringement occurred.
I'm sure you hate that idea but it's true nevertheless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Criticism
I'd be more impressed if he included, say, the Dome of the Rock in the destruction sequence. Strangely, he didn't.
The copyright claim is still bullshit, but Emmerich has glass balls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We are dicussing copyright - right?
Was a copy made?
I dont think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue the Catholic Church
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sue the Catholic Church
My god, think of the children!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sue the Catholic Church
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My guess: support blowing up the statue since it's a clear case of idol-worship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm confused...what does Jesus have to do with the Catholic Church?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:WWJD
For starters, He founded it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright - Free Speech...
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright - Free Speech...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright - Free Speech...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Things you learn....
Off topic, I know. Just a nugget....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this the same film/film maker that didn't destroy any Muslim monuments?
I guess the Catholic Church won't issue a fatwa, but they aren't above sending in the lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this the same film/film maker that didn't destroy any Muslim monuments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't this the same film/film maker that didn't destroy any Muslim monuments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Marcus Carab: Since it sounds like you're not a Christian, you might actually want to inform yourself before sounding more uninformed. I don't think anyone is worshiping the idol, it is a symbol the people have chosen to show the world that they believe in Christ. While there can be disagreement between believers (see: The protestant reformation) over the validity or use of statues, and to what extent this equates to "graven images", YOU are not in that position.
@DH: I know enough of your opinions in regards to organized religion to not care that you made your "joke".
Now, upon reflection while I detest Mr. Emmerich's use of his films to bash others beliefs, this MAY be a case of fair use. That being said, that's only if Brazil recognizes such a defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is some rock-solid tautological advice there, thanks.
While there can be disagreement between believers (see: The protestant reformation) over the validity or use of statues, and to what extent this equates to "graven images", YOU are not in that position.
Perhaps I should not have called it a "clear case" of idol worship, but the fact that I am not a believer doesn't mean I am unable to understand the nature of belief and worship, even if I have a different perspective on it. I have studied religion to some degree or another for most of my life, and I very much do understand the issue of idol worship.
In fact, one of the main barriers to my ever adopting religion when I was younger, and the reason I ultimately never did in any clearly defined sense, was the fact that it seemed ridiculous to me to constantly worship symbols and images. It was The Screwtape Letters that first got me to understand the distinction, and I've thought a lot about it since then. It seems to me as though every symbol of a belief creates the very real danger of shifting your worship to the symbol over the faith itself.
The role of symbols seems to be to make religion accessable - but anyone who truly pursues a religion to its fullest level of spiritual understanding must necessarily also be constantly moving away from those symbols, no? Isn't pure worship symbol-free? Given that, I question the value of a giant statue of Jesus on top of a mountain. I see it as something that exists to attract believers but does very little to elevate their spiritual existence.
So yes, I withdraw my statement that this is a "clear case", but I stand by my opinion on the statue and similar works of grandiose symbolism. I am skeptical of such symbolism in faith, and as such I do have my doubts about the value of organized religion in general (even if my views aren't as clear-cut as Dark Helmet's)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hmmmm... I think that I would very much disagree. I personally find that the display of symbols helps me very much connect with my faith. At least in my case, they serve as a visual cue to remind me of the beliefs, values, and ethics that I hold as a bar for my character. To your point, perhaps somewhere down the line I may transcend the need for them, but right now I find the need to rather regularly re-examine my approach to things to ensure it is consistent with my goals.
But I grant that it is a highly nuanced view--and not everyone is self-aware enough to make the distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In a situation like this, for example, it bothers me that the church takes offense at an assault on its symbol. I feel like the highest members of a church should be completely unmoved by the depiction of the statue crumbling - they should shrug and say something like "if you think that weakens our faith or the power of Christ in the slightest, you have gravely misunderstood God's message"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for symbolism as we have discovered humans think symbolically therefore we react to symbols more quickly and deeply than we do words. As you say, though, the trick is to embrace the symbol as just that and not to substitute it for faith.
As for the movie itself it's complete bunk though it does give the special effects folks lots of opportunity to seem to blow up lots of stuff. Even the base premise that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012 therefore the world ends has been declared bogus by Mayan elders and holy men.
Still does it do anything to my faith as a Christian that a statue appears to be blown up in a movie? Not one bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But, as a Christian myself, I do believe that the cross is used incorrectly in the modern church. We should be using as a constant reminder of what Jesus did and went through for love. Not some trinket to catch more fish.
Also, I dislike fighting over religion. It is really pointless and has caused more harm over the long run than anything shy of WW2 that I can think of. If you believe in Allah, good for you! God(Judaism)? Great! Jesus! hey, me too! Nobody/nothing? That fantastic, have a great day! (etc) see. no wars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Okay, to be fair, I'm not as familiar with the case of Christ the Redeemer as I am other Catholic symbols and statues (I was raised Catholic), but I'm not sure that the explanation of "symbol the people have chosen" in general holds water.
The Catholic Church has long consecrated sacrments at these sites (The Redeemer among them). More importantly, the Catholic belief in the community church as an important structure itself doesn't make a great deal of sense. Christ spoke of the importance of worshiping in groups....but the specific number he mentioned was THREE, not as an entire community. There is evidence to suggest that the Church as gone to lengths to turn the community church itself into a kind of idol worship.
And that doesn't even take into account the Vatican's recognition of certain "miracles" that surround statues and/or structures. One such example, link below, was the crying virgin Mary statue in Sacremento. No church official ever came out and said it wasn't a hoax or natural phenomenon, and the priest of the church actually took samples of the secretions and sent them to the Vatican for testing. Now, I don't know if this means that the Vatican itself worships idols, but they certainly don't seem to do much to quell said worship amongst there flock in these instances.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/10237371/
"I know enough of your opinions in regards to organized religion to not care that you made your "joke"."
It was a joke, yes, but one with serious undertones. I actually respect faith quite a bit (I have my own faith in God as well), but as you said, I certainly DO have some major issues with organized religion, particularly with regard to their attempts to control thought, inability to own up when they make mistakes, their intellectual dishonesty, and their blatant attempts at revisionist history. But Marcus' point was a good one: in many ways, the Catholic Church is the antithesis of Christ's teaching.
I don't say this to piss off believers, but merely as another point of view. As I said, I do have profound respect for faith and those that believe. What my major issues stems from is a lack of historical and factual understanding by those that hold their faith so dear (and this is in no way directed at you, btw)....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Interesting. I have always felt that the social structure of the Church emerges as much from natural human sociological tendencies as from the religion itself. Like when you go back and start with the biological emergence of modern humans, the formation of human society (and arguably, intelligence itself) comes from us organizing ourselves into groups for various reasons of necessity. So these groups emerged, first for the purposes of hunting and then for farming and then defense against other groups, and eventually for government and community, which is where the churches came in. It definitely seems like the role of the parish church in history has often enough been more that of administrative center and meeting place, (and, of course, power headquarters), than simply as a place of worship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That was actually far more true in history, particularly medieval history. If you visit landmark towns that have been protected by their governments in Europe, particularly Spain, France, and England, you'll notice that the Church is always the epicenter of the town. Everything surrounds it. This wasn't really because the people were more pious (though they certainly were more religious). Rather, it's because back then the Church itself had a hand in parsing land and chartering new cities and castles.
So what happened is they designed the church first and then built the rest of the city and fortifications around it. This resulted in the Church being in the middle, ALWAYS surrounded by the market, with homes and fortifications on the outside. The Church took a part of the tax that the Lord of the fortifications levied on the market, and it also took gratuity involved in lobbying for further land.
But this goes back even before then. Remember the story of Christ throwing the money changers out of the temple? Church's have ALWAYS been used as meeting places, and religion has always encouraged that, because, like governments do today, they levied charges on all of that business.
But the fact remains that Christ rarely if ever advocated for anything that represented a community church. He specifically spoke of the power of worshipping in groups, but the only number he mentioned was three. There are also verses in the Dead Sea Scrolls that speak against the need for any "houses of worship made of brick or stone", but instead suggest that you can find reasons to worship God all around you, and you should worship him/her/it there.
I'm more intrigued by how Catholic priests can take a vow of poverty and then live the way they do. I love how the Christ in the bible comes down and destroys the religious beuracracy and monarchy of his time....only to have the Catholic Church raise up another one in his name. And, for the life of me, if the path of faith is true understanding of God and Christ, I simply cannot understand why the Church goes to such lengths to surpress and demean perfectly valid historical information concerning the Gnostics, their texts, Mary Magdalene and her probable role as Christ's spiritual and sexual partner (one in the same in Gnostic/Egyptian religions of the time), and what happened to her and their family (there is a great deal of evidence, believe it or not, to suggest that Mary Magdalene and her children escaped to Southern France).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_texts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and I'm feeling guilty about calling your views "clear cut" - that's a bad choice of words. Let's go with "more vociferously and jocularly expressed"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Org. Religion always bad!
2. Chicago Deep Dish Pizza always good!
3. Priests Rich!
4. Dark Helmet MORE rich!
5. Writing good!
Just trying to be as simplistic as possible....
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So why limit it to only three?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I may not have been very clear. He didn't LIMIT it to three, but that was the only number he mentioned. He said, paraprasing, that worshiping in groups of three or more was spriritually important, but he never said anything about community congregations or anything even remotely close to them. Yet the Church has taken that statement and turned it into a validation for their beuracracy.
Sorry for the confusion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right before it, Jesus says:
18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.
19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2018&version=NIV
Isn't verse 18 kind of a blank check? What you bind is bound? If 2-3 come together and agree, it will be done for you. And that Jesus is probably with them.
But that's not what I'd use to argue for church. I'd point out the Jews always came together for corporate scripture reading and worship. The Christians did that too, often with the Jews on Saturday. Then they'd come together for Communion on Sunday. When the Romans destroyed the temple in AD 70, the Christians stuck the two servcies together. Thus today Catholics celebrate the mass in two parts. I wouldn't even use a biblical argument, just a practical one mixed with some history.
But if you were using a biblical argument, wouldn't verse 18 be the blank check for church development? Especially for Catholics?
Anyway, I'm on topic with this site because who copyrights the freaking bible? Poor form bible translators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Organized belief systems tend to have expectations relatively nailed down. This exposes them to criticism when their beliefs differ from what is popular at that time.
And that's where your original post went wrong. You are disappointed at the director's public views on your religion. You have similar views about his beliefs. This all ignores the actual question for this site, whether or not this should be solved in court.
I actually think that the Roman Catholic Church has added an incredible amount of moral behavior, culture, and peace to the world. Certainly, there were times and individuals who abused the power and influence of the church. Again, just like the director's views on religion, the sins of the Catholic individual unfortunately shade people's view of that church in its entirety.
The best thing would be for such a famous statue to be considered public domain.
I think the cardinal is making a mistake here. It will only increase feelings of animosity towards the church. It distracts from the love and good works found in the church, and helps people quickly justify their animosity towards the church.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, and pay up bitches!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rediculous...
Lawyers that bring this kind of thing to the courts should be dis-barred.
Why don't snakes bite lawyers? Professional courtesy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rediculous...
I don't think that's the reason. I think it's more that they can't get the taste out of their mouths afterwards....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vive la difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brazilian law (Lei 9610/1998) states in its chapter on limits to copyright:
Art. 48. Works permanently set on public areas may be freely reproduced on painting, drawings, photography and audiovisual techniques. ("As obras situadas permanentemente em logradouros públicos podem ser representadas livremente, por meio de pinturas, desenhos, fotografias e procedimentos audiovisuais")
http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL/Leis/L9610.htm (link to law text in Portuguese)
Nevertheless, the Rio de Janeiro catholich church claims ownership to any use of the statue. Back in 1989, a school of samba had a car in the carnival parade displaying the Christ as a beggar. The church managed to have a judge forbid the sculpture. In the parade, it was covered by a black cloth.
http://novo.almanaquebrasil.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ratos-e-urubus.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brazil
ps this episode also had my favorite tshirt ever - homer walking on beach in thong and t-shirt that had uncle sam taking an enormous bite out of the world with the caption "America, just try an stop us!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brazil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Marcus Carab: I got the tautological part of my argument right after I pushed "submit". I also didn't mean to imply otherwise (that non-believers can have NO understanding), but as your did admit, your use of "clear cut" definately guided my response a bit. You do perhaps have a point on the grandiose nature of the statue. All I can say in response is this: Perhaps the nature of conversions of the native peoples of Latin America in particular (say 1500-1800 A.D.) from pagan beliefs has influenced how their beliefs are expressed, in the use of statues, above and beyond other cultures. Forced on the issue, I myself have always been a bit uncomfortable with the over use of such symbolism. That doesn't mean I disagree with any use, and this is where you and I part ways.
@DH: The only point I may be able to offer clarity on is the statue miracle thing. Actually, the Catholic Church goes to tremendous lengths to distance itself from any claimed miracles surrounding inanimate objects, religious in nature or otherwise. In fact, most of the time they put out a statement from the Vatican, or local Bishop, stating as much (sort of a "proceed at your own risk" warning). Only a very few, perhaps less than a handful of cases exist where the Vatican has said there might be something real occuring. So while a local priest may make a comment indicating his belief, the higher structure of the Church has a rigorous set of standards that need to be met to prove a "miracle". As for Jesus's teaching he did say "three OR MORE". Whether the Church has taken the community aspect too far is certainly open to discussion.
OK. Enough of Bible study, back to the copyright issues...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
by BBT
It's entirely possible for organized religion to be evil AND non-religious people to be evil. Who needs logic? I guess not you.
@BBT: Respectfully grow a brain, and don't put words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't possible for both to be true.
I was stating that the implication from many opposed to organized religion, some (such as yourself) venemously opposed, is that organized religion is either the ONLY, or the MAIN source of evil actions. This is of course an absurd falsehood, when actual historical analysis is done.
I was simply discounting the false argument that organized religion is somehow unique in fostering evil actions. While we're discussing logic however, nice straw man attack. Back to school for you old boy...yawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The straw man would like a word with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@mobiGeek
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL/Leis/L9610.htm (link to law text in Portuguese) it does seem that this use could be protected (however much I dislike the context) even if no concept of "fair use" exists there. So it's not that clear cut. Also it appears that Brazil (at least local level judges) have ignored the law in the past to suite cultural sensitivities (something not uncommon in the USA unfortunately). My first post was more of a gut level response out of dislike for Mr. Emmerich. I am for copyright reform, but to some extent the law of the land must also be respected. If there isn't fair use there (which I thought there was not) it would put the church potentially in the technical right. Then I read about the law above, and then of course the Striessand Effect must be considered. I stand corrected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about...
What about The history channels "Life after people" They destroyed that statue in one of their episodes... Did they get and flack about it, probably not being the fact that it probably didn't generate as much revenue, well at least not enough to go after them and get even a fraction of a percentage of what they might get out of the blockbuster 2012...I think it's just another way to get them selfs in the paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On your comment regarding "perfectly valid historical information concerning..." if I were you, I would take some time to examine the source evidence of these claims. There are clearly spelled out reasons WHY the Catholic Church rejected the Gnostic texts. If you believe in Gnosticism so be it, but there are specific doctrine based reasons for distancing these texts from Catholicism, and even from Christianity. The Jesus of the gnostics is not the Jesus of the Christians. As for the Mary Magdelene bloodline "stories", I highly recommend to you researching the The Priory of Sion. The validity of the claims have been fairly thoroughly proven to be false. This is where much of the modern "Dan Brown" beliefs in Mary Magdelene come from. She was however, portrayed at times during the middle ages as a prostitute, but mainly because some patriarchal minded individuals didn't like the idea of a woman so close to Jesus. You would be hard pressed however, to find any historical Biblical texts linking Jesus with Mary romantically. I'm inclined to believe this is because none exist. Conspiracies on such a grand scale, while possible, are messy, and leave evidence trails. None to date have been substantiated. Have a good one. =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Okay, see here's where you're going to lose me, because that is demonstrably false. Even deciding NOT to take into consideration the way they hide some of their possessions by having them as "gifts" of either the Church or community (such as the cars they absolutely do drive, etc.), the average income for a member of the Catholic Clergy according to the US Census Bureau in 2008 was $45440/year. That's around double the number for the US poverty line for single income earner.....AND THEY DON'T PAY FOR ANYTHING!!!! No room and board, no in rectory meals, no cable bills....NOTHING. Most Catholic priests even have an expense count through the church to pay for eating out or entertainment.
So come one, you were dead wrong on that one....
"I would take some time to examine the source evidence of these claims."
I have...in a fair amount of detail. It was part of a subject of a book I recently finished writing, and I examined the arguments on both sides of the issue. The historians I'm referencing are well-respected.
"There are clearly spelled out reasons WHY the Catholic Church rejected the Gnostic texts."
Really? I haven't heard of any clearly spelled out reasons. I've heard lots of claims about validity that don't hold much water. The Gospel of Thomas, for instance, was given no clear reason for refusal from Canon. The same is true with the Gospel of Mary, arguably focused on Mary Magdalene's role as an apostle, although its unstated reason for exclusion is fairly clear (Peter is protrayed as a misogynist). The point is that the Council of Nicea had its motives, and it's fairly clear that they were far from pure. That doesn't make reading the bible wrong, but failing to understand where those books came from, and how/when they were chosen means those people don't understand their own faith.
"As for the Mary Magdelene bloodline "stories", I highly recommend to you researching the The Priory of Sion. The validity of the claims have been fairly thoroughly proven to be false."
That is absolutely not true. Nothing has been thoroughly decided either way.
"You would be hard pressed however, to find any historical Biblical texts linking Jesus with Mary romantically."
In the canonical texts that's true, but not in the gnostic texts (and here is one of the key reasons they were dismissed). In the Gospel of Mary, for instance, Peter complains to Christ of his closeness to Mary Magdalene, particularly the act of his "kissing her on the mouth". Now, you're not going to get an X rated account from any religious text, but one of the neolithic religions still practiced at that time worshiped Isis and Osiris (Venus and the Sun), and one of the beliefs of the time was that the a king could only attain true power if he consecrated sexually with a woman of that belief. The timing of Christ's venture into Roman controlled territory and the gnostic texts suggesting Christ and Mary's relationship line up very well.
The theory is that Christ had no intention on dying for our sins, but was instead going to assume the role of King of the Jews (the people, not the religion) once he had vanquished the Romans. Messiah, after all, didn't mean then what it does now. One of the translations is "warrior king".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and if you think catholic priests are bad, you should see charismatic heretics, errr, "preachers".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov1.html
In 2006 (the last year on that page) it was about $10,000 for one individual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Gnostic texts and what are being discussed here as Gnostic (not all are) were rejected at the Council of Nicea in the 300s long before the Roman Catholic Church gained or even claimed hegemony over Christianity at least in western Europe. The people we know as Orthodox were there too and had equal or more input into the Canon as the Church of Rome, as it was known then, had.
The Gnostics, contrary to what some would have us think, were by no means unified in what they believed or advocated either. There were significant differences between them and attacks on each other were contained within their writings.
The Roman canon is not the same as the Greek, Russian, Syrian, Coptic or even Ethiopian Church's canon and it certainly not the same as the ancient tiny church in India whose adherents claim was founded by Thomas (the Doubter). Both that church and the Ethiopian church's canons contain gospels of Thomas which aren't the same as each other or what it cited by those leaning to the Gnostic view of things.
Conspiracy theories are all well and good though such arguments as you make are a waste of energy best spent elsewhere. The major reason Gnostic texts were left out of the canon adopted at Nicea, those that made it there after the Coptics rejected the rest. was the requirement for a seer or interpreter to teach all others including the threefold ministry Christianity had inherited from the Temple in Jerusalem along with the rejection by Gnostics that Jesus was not fully human when he walked the earth but something else.
With all respect your interpretation of the Gnostic texts or even that they all agree with what Jesus' mission here on earth was is simplistic and wrong.
Indeed one of the many interpretations of Messiah is warrior king. But that's only one of the various interpretations of what the Messiah would be in 1st Century Palestine.
When you come to the fact that the one settled on was a peasant rabbi from Galilee, of all places, a man who accepted women into his following as equals something scandalous in its day, a condemned and executed criminal who taught love over violence and oppression there must be something to that teaching that half the world has found compelling and true.
Not even the worst that human beings, almost all men, have done in the succeeding two millennia have done in Jesus name have diminished that message one little bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with post number 40
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree with post number 40
If, as Christians believe that Jesus was fully human before the Resurrection and fully God afterwards then whether or not he was married or had children is immaterial to that belief.
In fact, Jewish practises of the time would have had Mary and Joseph marrying him off at near light speed following his acceptance into adulthood.
To assert that the Apostles were also unmarried as some Roman Catholics do is equally unlikely.
In the end it doesn't matter one iota to what Jesus was teaching. It doesn't change one thing. If anything being married and having children, as some claim, would make him more fully human than the unmarried virginal aesthetic some would make a case for.
As a catholic Christian (note the small c there) it wouldn't and doesn't change who or what Jesus was and does nothing to change the basic message of Christianity and that is that we are charged to love one another.
Nor does it make him less than the Son of God or a lesser Son of God. To say so is to ignore his message over a minor, in comparison, issue that was as meaningless then as it is now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL...because the statue was destroyed? LOL...Good one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(i.e. blowing something up)
hmmmmm.. nope
so why is everyone in a tizzy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
....and people wonder why I'm agnostic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only caveat being the traditional stance against condoms. They really need to cut it out with that stuff....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Curious is all..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Title of the book is Echelon. I have the first few chapters on my blog...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another ACTA leak
ACTA leak again
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4829/125/
and remember what jesus did at the temple with the merchants
DO YOU?
HE TOSSED THEM OUT ON THERE ASSES
and OM.GOD ITS A MOVIE
next we'll get the USA sue the planet of the apes for destroying the pretend statue of liberty and OMG OMG i can't hold it back no more. SEE why COPYRIGHT IS SATANIC
its EVIL
EVIL i tell you
anyone into it is EVIL
EVIL
so damn EVIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I AM SPARTACUS
im blowing up lil jesus dolls in back yard SUE ME PLEASE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRIOR art and public domain 2000 years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HEY wait a minute thats not jesus its homer simpson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
robing peter to pay paul
and i dont need religion to tell me whats good and right and none of this is right nor good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
countersue
MAYBE this guy...
NO?
HOW about this one. Turn to court and say are we wasting enough money on lawyers yet?
lets take a recess and subpeona all these people.
I want to know who dis jesus guy is anyhow.
( make sure you get some mexicans named Jesus as well)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's gold in them thar hills
When I hear it, it makes me want to ask people, "Who taught you to talk like a whore? Your mother?" If that's offensive to you, don't you consider it offensive to speak of God in such crass terms?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is one of the worst thread jackings I have seen in a while.
What was the topic again?
Oh yeah, copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teleological vs. Deontological
"Down with religion, up with god."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see this lawsuit going anywhere because the statue of "Christ The Redeemer" is a religious icon. Religious icons cannot be copyrighted. When was the last time that someone got sued using Jesus' image in a religious pamphlet. The statue is an image of Jesus and I don't see how anyone can claim a copyright on Jesus.
That's what this is going to amount to. Not only that, but you also cannot copyright a statue.
Matter of fact, there are a number of statues that use that name and I doubt that the courts will even hear a case where a church is claiming copyright on the very image of Jesus Christ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prove to me that statue is CHRIST
THINK this way. YOU Live now , 2000 years form now some guy paints a portrait a you and instead a being male he doe sit female with big tatas. IF i were christs familly id be suing the catholic church for commissioning any likeness of a man they cannot know as it is then a false idiol. AND we all know what happens when you bible thumpers worship idols now don't we
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anony is keepin it classy for all you fine folks out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If, as Christians believe that Jesus was fully human before the Resurrection and fully God afterwards then whether or not he was married or had children is immaterial to that belief..
That's not what Christians believe. He was fully human, and fully devine, before, during, and after the resurrection. Yes, this would be true whether he had children or was married or not, and that is the point that undermines the conspiracy theories. There would be no material reason to suppress such evidence, yet none has surfaced. The idea that every single,solitary text could have been destroyed, is absurd. Even if such an effort could effectively be under taken, the effort itself (such as the burning of books by Hitler) would have been documented. Again history is silent. A Catholic Christian, (The LARGE C due not out of respect, but out of proper use of the ENGLISH laungauge, look up the rules there please), should know their religion. If you honestly were taught that Jesus was only fully devine after the ressurection, you have some more to learn. His divinity enabled his ressurrection in human form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood sued by Catholic Church
The "family" had never any right to the work. The movie company knew this. They "attempted a circumvention" which by itself is another actionable offense under law. IT is called "conspiracy" and in most jurisdictions will triple the reward.
This means that a 20M court award will return 60M to the church.
I am not Catholic and really do not care about benefiting them at all. I will say that if the court awards 100% of all earnings to the church, or even more...then that is reasonable.
The movie company violated someone's rights and property. They deserve the WORST that can happen to them.
Let's examine this differently. The movie company comes into your house and takes the movie there after you have told them NO they cannot do that.
what would you do? The movie company does NOT care it only cares about PROFIT. Therefore eh only reasonable solution is to ELIMINATE their profit as an example to ALL move companies that this is not acceptable in any way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brasileiros
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shameful. I doubt the producer would have the guts. to create a statue of mohammed and destroy it, knowing the outrage that would happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A really good post man, very thankful and hopeful that you will write many more posts like this one.
https://www.rankerhub.com/neha-kakkar-height-age-wiki-bio-pictures/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]