Mel Gibson’s Maccabee movie put on hold [updated]

April 12, 2012

(latimesblogs)(Atlantic)It turns out that Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite, according to screenwriter Joe Eszterhas, who was hired by Gibson to write a Judah Maccabee biopic. From The Wrap:

Gibson’s anti-Semitic obsession was a leitmotif of working on the film together at Gibson’s homes in Malibu and Costa Rica, Eszterhas said.
“You continually called Jews ‘Hebes’ and ‘oven-dodgers’ and ‘Jewboys.’ It seemed that most times when we discussed someone, you asked ‘He’s a Hebe, isn’t he?’ You said most ‘gatekeepers’ of American companies were ‘Hebes’ who ‘controlled their bosses.'”
The slurs continued, through their work:
“You said the Holocaust was ‘mostly a lot of horseshit.’ You said the Torah made reference to the sacrifice of Christian babies and infants. When I told you that you were confusing the Torah with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, … you insisted ‘it’s in the Torah — it’s in there!’ (It isn’t).”
And he said Gibson told him that his intention in making “The Maccabees” was “to convert the Jews to Christianity.”

Before I met with Gibson about the Judah Maccabee project, I was also convinced that he is an anti-Semite. After I thought about our meeting for some time, I came to the conclusion that he is mainly mentally ill, and anti-Semitism is one manifestation of his psychological condition. I also found him highly amusing, as I detailed in this previous post. Most anti-Semites, in my experience, aren’t as amusing as Gibson. I am still glad, obviously, that the Judah Maccabee movie seems to be derailed, at least with Gibson in charge of it.

you had to work with him to figure that one out?


Mel Gibson Loses Half of His $850 Million Fortune to Ex-Wife in Divorce

December 28, 2011

I almost feel bad for him

ap Gibson mj 110909 wblog Mel Gibson Loses Half of His $850 Million Fortune to Ex Wife in Divorce

(abcnews.go.com Lionel Cironneau, file/AP Photo) Mel Gibson is not only single, but $425 million poorer, thanks to a divorce settlement finalized Friday between the actor and his wife of 31 years, Robyn Denise Moore.

The judgment, finalized by a judge in Los Angeles, keeps virtually all details of the settlement secret.People magazine reports that the couple did not have a prenuptial agreement, meaning his ex-wife would be entitled to half of everything Gibson earned during their marriage.

The Oscar-winner’s fortune has been estimated to be as high as $850 million, the magazine said, citing a 2006 report in the Los Angeles Business Journal. Throughout the 31-year marriage, which produced seven children, Gibson directed, invested and starred in movies such as “The Passion of the Christ,” which grossed more than $600 million alone.  He also invested heavily in real estate, including an island in Fiji he bought for $15 million in 2005.
People also reports that Moore, a former dental nurse, is entitled to half of any film residuals Gibson receives for the rest of his life.
Moore, 55, filed for divorce from Gibson, also 55, in 2009.  The two met in the late 1970s, when they were both tenants in a house in Adelaide, Australia.   Of their seven children only one, a 12-year-old son, is a minor and therefore subject to a custody agreement.
The divorce, which will take effect Jan. 9, is believed to be the biggest celebrity divorce payout in Hollywood history.  Director Steven Spielberg paid an estimated $100 million to Amy Irving in their 1989 divorce.
Gibson’s divorce payout and the potential custody battle that lies ahead comes on the heels of the $750,000 he agreed to pay to Oksana Grigorieva, his former girlfriend and mother of his toddler daughter, Lucia, in August.
The two, who split last April, were engaged in a bitter custody dispute that included leaked recordings that sounded like Gibson engaged in a racist and sexist tirade, and Grigorieva accusing Gibson of domestic violence.
The “Braveheart” star pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge involving Grigorieva in March.  The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department also investigated allegations of  attempted extortion by Grigorieva, but she was never charged.
Robyn Moore came to her now ex-husband’s defense in the battery case, filing a brief declaration that Gibson had never physically abused her or their children.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Robert Downey Jr. Asks Hollywood to "Forgive" Mel Gibson

October 19, 2011
Media_httpwwwusmagazi_facktFriday night Downey, 46, accepted an American Cinematheque Award in Beverly Hills, and the actor used his time on stage to ask Hollywood to forgive Gibson. But Downey, who is proudly clean and sober today, isn’t about to judge Gibson. “Mel and I have the same lawyer, same publicist, and same shrink. I couldn’t get hired and he cast me,” Downey said. “He said if I accepted responsibility — he called it hugging the cactus — long enough, my life would take meaning. And if he helped me, I would help the next guy. But it was not reasonable to expect the next guy would be him.”
It isn’t Gibson’s vice problems that are the issue… it is that Mel Gibson had an agenda when he was sober. I have seen little change from him.

Mel Gibson does a Glenn Beck

September 17, 2011

‘Mel Gibson called me an oven-dodger’, claims Winona Ryder….

….When you slander Jews and your fans start hating you… No, you are not redeemed by becoming a phony Jew lover. Your sin is between you and G-d. It was your problem that you made it public to begin with. The Maccabi’s are not your whores. The Maccabi’s are not your smoke and mirror. Mel Gibson has a lot of nerve to blemish the good name of those who would of told this piss ant where to put it.

(Deadline) Warner Bros has set up an untitled drama that teams Gibson and screenwriter Joe Eszterhas on the telling of the heroic story of Jewish warrior Judah Maccabee. Eszterhas will write the script, and I understand that Gibson will collaborate with him. Maccabee teamed with his father and four brothers to lead the Jewish revolt against the Greek-Syrian armies that had conquered Judea in the second century B.C. Gibson has the first option to direct but will definitely produce the film through his Icon Productions banner. It’s understandable why Warner Bros would want to be back in business with Gibson, who was once a high-profile fixture there and who made a fortune for that studio with the Lethal Weapon series and other films.

A que from Obama. No one will think about your hatred and abuse if you declare Jew day in America.


Dreadlocks: not what comes to mind when one thinks of the Irish

May 23, 2011

DUBLIN, IRELAND – MAY 22: A demonstrator holds a placard protesting against the visit of President Barack Obama on May 22, 2011 in Dublin, Ireland. U.S. President Barack Obama is visiting Ireland tomorrow for one day. He will meet with distant relatives in Moneygall and speak at a rally in central Dublin after a concert in the evening. (Getty Images)

one of the extras from Braveheart?


Why Are So Many Public Figures Ranting Against "The Jews"?

March 7, 2011

When celebrities are drunk, on drugs or just high on their own egos, they often engage in rants. These days many such rants are captured on cell phone videos or audio tapes and go viral on the internet. Nothing surprising there. What is surprising to many is that the rant de jour these days seems to be directed against Jews.

Consider the former Dior designer, John Galliano, who was sitting in a bar in a Jewish section of Paris and announcing his love for Hitler and smiling as he told the people at an adjoining table, who he apparently assumed to be Jewish, that “People like you would be dead. Your mothers, your forefathers, would all be f—– gassed.”
Or consider Charlie Sheen who claims to be high on Charlie Sheen, attacking his producer by emphasizing the Jewish nature of his original name, Chaim Levine.
Or Oliver Stone telling an interviewer last year that too much attention is paid to the Holocaust because of “Jewish domination of the media.” And that Hitler wasn’t all that terrible to the Jews.
Then there is the Reverend Louis Farrakhan, ranting and raving about Satanic Jews controlling the world.
This is not an entirely new phenomenon. Mel Gibson delivered a similar rant when he was stopped by Los Angeles police in 2006. “F*****g Jews… The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” Gibson then asked the deputy, “Are you a Jew?”
Generally, sobriety results in apology, but the damage has been done.
The question is why the Jews? There’s an old joke about a Nazi rally in Nuremberg where Hitler is screaming, “Who causes all of Germany’s problems?” An old man in the crowd shouts back, “the bicycle riders.” Hitler’s taken by surprise and asks, “why the bicycle riders?” To which the old man replies, “why the Jews?” That was the 1930s. But “why the Jews” in the second decade of the 21st Century?
Let me suggest two possible answers. The first is that little about the nature of prejudice has really changed, but the advent of the age of high technology has brought private prejudices into the public arena. In commenting on the Galliano outburst, Michael Goubert, a French DJ and music designer, observed that “virulent views like those expressed by [Galliano] are not rare.” But “the public expression” of intolerance is unusual and particularly troubling, according to patrons of the bar in which Galliano expressed his bigoted views. The pervasiveness of cell phone videos and the widespread use of the social media have blurred the line between private and public expression. What used to be only whispered to friends at a bar is now broadcast around the world.
There is a second, a far more troubling answer to “Why the Jews?” Prominent public figures have blurred another line as well—the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, between attacking the Jewish state and attacking the Jewish people. Consider widely publicized remarks made by Bishop Desmond Tutu, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and the American Model of Freedom, and a man openly admired and praised by President Obama. He has called the Jews “a peculiar people” and has accused “the Jews” of causing many of the world’s problems. He has railed against “the Jewish Lobby,” comparing its power to that of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.
He has said that “the Jews thought they had a monopoly of God: Jesus was angry that they could shut out other human beings.” He has said that Jews have been “fighting against” and being “opposed to” his God. He has “compared the features of the ancient Holy Temple in Jerusalem to the features of the apartheid system in South Africa.” He has complained that “the Jewish people with their traditions, religion and long history of persecution sometimes appear to have caused a refugee problem among others.” Tutu has minimized the suffering of those murdered in the Holocaust by asserting that “the gas chambers” made for “a neater death” than did Apartheid. He has complained of “the Jewish Monopoly of the Holocaust,” and has demanded that its victims must “forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust,” while refusing to forgive the “Jewish people” for “persecute[ing] others.”
He has complained that Americans “are scared…to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful—very powerful.” He has accused Jews—not Israelis—of exhibiting “an arrogance—the arrogance of power because Jews are a powerful lobby in this land and all kinds of people woo their support.”
Tutu has acknowledged having been frequently accused of being anti-Semitic,” to which he has offered two responses: “Tough luck;” and “my dentist’s name is Dr. Cohen.”
Former President Jimmy Carter too has contributed to this new legitimization of Jew-bashing, by echoing Tutu’s derisive talk about the Jewish domination of America (“powerful political, economic and religious forces…that dominate our media”) and his use of the term “Apartheid” in his book about Israel.
By thus blurring the line between legitimate political criticism and illegitimate bigotry, widely admired people like Tutu and Carter tend to legitimate the kind of anti-Semitic attitudes that manifest themselves in the rants of celebrities like Galliano, Sheen, Gibson and others.
This blurring has also affected the tone on university campuses around the world, where Tutu and Carter are particularly admired and imitated. I speak on campuses throughout the world and I had never, until recently, heard and seen the kind of language now being directed against Jewish students and faculty who support Israel.
So I was not as surprised as some by the recent celebrity rants. The oldest prejudice has never quite disappeared. It just went underground and has now resurfaced as a result of new technology and new legitimization by the likes of Bishop Tutu and Jimmy Carter.
Fortunately there are intelligent and principled young celebrities like Natalie Portman who are trying to offset this development by speaking out against bigotry.

This article originally appeared in a different version in the New York Post, March 6, 2011.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

not sure if I’d call Natalie Portman principled with these matters, but I do think she is trying 


Pope Benedict Exonerates Jews for Jesus’ Death in New Book – I don’t get it either

March 5, 2011
Pope Benedict XVI has made a sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ, tackling one of the most controversial issues in Christianity in a new book.
In “Jesus of Nazareth-Part II” excerpts released Wednesday, Benedict explains biblically and theologically why there is no basis in Scripture for the argument that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for Jesus’ death.
Interpretations to the contrary have been used for centuries to justify the persecution of Jews.
While the Catholic Church has for five decades taught that Jews weren’t collectively responsible, Jewish scholars said Wednesday the argument laid out by the German-born pontiff, who has had his share of mishaps with Jews, was a landmark statement from a pope that would help fight anti-Semitism today.
“Holocaust survivors know only too well how the centuries-long charge of ‘Christ killer’ against the Jews created a poisonous climate of hate that was the foundation of anti-Semitic persecution whose ultimate expression was realized in the Holocaust,” said Elan Steinberg of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants.
The pope’s book, he said, not only confirms church teaching refuting the deicide charge “but seals it for a new generation of Catholics.”
The Catholic Church issued its most authoritative teaching on the issue in its 1965 Second Vatican Council document “Nostra Aetate,” which revolutionized the church’s relations with Jews by saying Christ’s death could not be attributed to Jews as a whole at the time or today.
Benedict comes to the same conclusion, but he explains how with a thorough, Gospel-by-Gospel analysis that leaves little doubt that he deeply and personally believes it to be the case: That only a few Temple leaders and a small group of supporters were primarily responsible for Christ’s crucifixion.
That Benedict is a theologian makes “this statement from the Holy See that much more significant for now and for future generations,” said Anti-Defamation League national director, Abraham H. Foxman.
Foxman in a statement hailed Benedict for rejecting “the previous teachings and perversions that have helped to foster and reinforce anti-Semitism through the centuries.”
The book is the second installment to Benedict’s 2007 “Jesus of Nazareth,” his first book as pope, which offered a very personal meditation on the early years of Christ’s life and teachings. This second book, set to be released March 10, concerns the final part of Christ’s life, his death and resurrection.
The Vatican’s publishers provided a few excerpts Wednesday.
In the book, Benedict re-enacts Jesus’ final hours, including his death sentence for blasphemy, then analyzes each Gospel account to explain why Jews as a whole cannot be blamed for it. Rather, Benedict concludes, it was the “Temple aristocracy” and a few supporters of the figure Barabbas who were responsible.
“How could the whole people have been present at this moment to clamor for Jesus’ death?” Benedict asks.
He deconstructs one particular biblical account which has the crowd saying, “His blood be on us and on our children” — a phrase frequently cited as evidence of the collective guilt Jews bore and the curse that they carried as a result.
The phrase, from the Gospel of Matthew, has been so incendiary that director Mel Gibson was reportedly forced to drop it from the subtitles of his 2004 film “The Passion of the Christ,” although it remained in the spoken Aramaic.
But Benedict said Jesus’ death wasn’t about punishment, but rather salvation. Jesus’ blood, he said, “does not cry out for vengeance and punishment, it brings reconciliation. It is not poured out against anyone, it is poured out for many, for all.”
Benedict, who was forced to join the Hitler Youth as a child in Nazi Germany, has made improving relations with Jews a priority of his pontificate. He has visited the Auschwitz Nazi death camp in Poland and Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial.
But he also has had a few missteps that have drawn the ire of Jewish groups, most notably when in 2009 he lifted the excommunication of a traditionalist Catholic bishop who had denied the extent of the Holocaust by saying no Jews were gassed during World War II.
Benedict has said that had he known Bishop Richard Williamson’s views about Jews he never would have lifted the excommunication, which was imposed in 1988 because Williamson was consecrated without papal consent. Williamson is a member of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, which has rejected many Vatican II teachings, including the outreach to Jews contained in Nostra Aetate.
Separately, Jewish groups have been outraged that Benedict is moving Pope Pius XII closer to beatification, the first main hurdle to possible sainthood. Some Jews and historians have argued the World War II-era pope should have done more to prevent the Holocaust.
The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit who writes frequently about spirituality, said the pope’s new book was a “ringing reaffirmation” of Nostra Aetate, which was passed during the Second Vatican Council, with the pope putting his “personal stamp on it in a way that’s irrefutable.”
“A Vatican Council is the highest teaching authority of the church,” Martin said. “Now that you have the pope’s reflections underlining it, I don’t know how much more authoritative you can get.”
Pope via catholicchampion.blogspot.com

Rabbi David Rosen, head of interreligious affairs at the American Jewish Committee and a leader of Vatican-Jewish dialogue, said the pope’s book may make a bigger, more lasting mark than Nostra Aetate because the faithful tend to read Scripture and commentary more than church documents, particularly old church documents.

“It may be an obvious thing for Jews to present texts with commentaries, but normally with church magisterium, they present a document,” he said. “This is a pedagogical tool that he’s providing, so people will be able to interpret the text in keeping with orthodox Vatican teaching.”
Foxman put it another way, saying the pontiff’s book translates Nostra Aetate “down to the pews.”

Next week he will meet with Palestinians again and give sainthood to a former pope who was complicit with the Holocaust again. Rome is all politics.

At his trial before Pilate, Jesus is confronted with a Jewish mob bent on seeing him killed (Matt. 27:20-25). The Roman governor capitulates, washing his hands and saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood.” Then, “all the people answered, `His blood be on us and on our children!'”
PilateAs history, this happens to be implausible. The first-century historian Josephus makes clear in his account of the period that Pilate was a brutal tyrant unconcerned with mollifying the Jews on any point.

The passion of the ChristAs Jewish theology, however, it’s more creditable. Far from being a Christian invention to blacken the reputation of the Jews in future generations, the verse’s whole idea of collective guilt is actually Jewish. This is unsurprising coming from Matthew, the most Jewish of the gospel writers.

From Genesis on, we find instance after instance of fathers changing the destiny of their descendants. When Adam and Eve sinned, God told Adam, “By the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread.” As for Eve, “I will great increase your suffering and your childbearing; in pain shall you bear children” (Gen. 3:16-19). Every time a man trudges off to the office for another grueling day, every time a woman groans in labor, it is the legacy of our earliest ancestors.

via beliefnet.com image via websters-dictionary-online.com and via copiosa.org

Matthew-26:57-68 26:57: Those who had taken Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. 26:58: But Peter followed him from a distance, to the court of the high priest, and entered in and sat with the officers, to see the end. 26:59: Now the chief priests, the elders, and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus, that they might put him to death; 26:60: and they found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward, 26:61: and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.'” 26:62: The high priest stood up, and said to him, “Have you no answer? What is this that these testify against you?” 26:63: But Jesus held his peace. The high priest answered him, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 26:64: Jesus said to him, “You have said it. Nevertheless, I tell you, henceforth you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of the sky.” 26:65: Then the high priest tore his clothing, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy. 26:66: What do you think?” They answered, “He is worthy of death!” 26:67: Then they spit in his face and beat him with their fists, and some slapped him, 26:68: saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who hit you?”
The passion of the ChristThe passion of the ChristThe passion of the ChristThe passion of the ChristThe passion of the ChristThe passion of the ChristThe passion of the ChristThe passion of the ChristThe passion of the ChristThe passion of the ChristThe passion of the Christ  Matthew 27:11-14 27:11: Now Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus said to him, “So you say.” 27:12: When he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. 27:13: Then Pilate said to him, “Don’t you hear how many things they testify against you?” 27:14: He gave him no answer, not even one word, so that the governor marveled greatly. Matthew 27:19 27:19: While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.” Matthew 27:22-25 27:22: Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do to Jesus, who is called Christ?” They all said to him, “Let him be crucified!” 27:23: But the governor said, “Why? What evil has he done?” But they cried out exceedingly, saying, “Let him be crucified!” 27:24: So when Pilate saw that nothing was being gained, but rather that a disturbance was starting, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this righteous person. You see to it.” 27:25: All the people answered, “May his blood be on us, and on our children!” Matthew 27:26 27:26: Then he released to them Barabbas, but Jesus he flogged and delivered to be crucified. Matthew 27:27-31 27:27: Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium, and gathered the whole garrison together against him. 27:28: They stripped him, and put a scarlet robe on him. 27:29: They braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him, and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” 27:30: They spat on him, and took the reed and struck him on the head. 27:31: When they had mocked him, they took the robe off of him, and put his clothes on him, and led him away to crucify him. Matthew 27:32 27:32: As they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name, and they compelled him to go with them, that he might carry his cross. Luke 23:33-34 23:33: When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified him there with the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left. 23:34: Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.” Dividing his garments among them, they cast lots. Luke 23:39-43 23:39: One of the criminals who was hanged insulted him, saying, “If you are the Christ, save yourself and us!” 23:40: But the other answered, and rebuking him said, “Don’t you even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 23:41: And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” 23:42: He said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 23:43: Jesus said to him, “Assuredly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Mark-15-29 15:29: Those who passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Ha! You who destroy the temple, and build it in three days, 15:30: save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 15:31: Likewise, also the chief priests mocking among themselves with the scribes said, “He saved others. He can’t save himself. 15:32: Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, that we may see and believe him.{TR omits “him”}” Those who were crucified with him insulted him. Mark-15:33-41 15:33: When the sixth hour{or, noon} had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.{3:00 PM} 15:34: At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is, being interpreted, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 15:35: Some of those who stood by, when they heard it, said, “Behold, he is calling Elijah.” 15:36: One ran, and filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Let him be. Let’s see whether Elijah comes to take him down.” 15:37: Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and gave up the spirit. 15:38: The veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom. 15:39: When the centurion, who stood by opposite him, saw that he cried out like this and breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” 15:40: There were also women watching from afar, among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; 15:41: who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and served him; and many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem. Mark-15:42-47 15:42: When evening had now come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 15:43: Joseph of Arimathaea, a prominent council member who also himself was looking for the Kingdom of God, came. He boldly went in to Pilate, and asked for Jesus’ body. 15:44: Pilate marveled if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead long. 15:45: When he found out from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. 15:46: He bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been cut out of a rock. He rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 15:47: Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Joses, saw where he was laid. Mark-16:1-20 16:1: When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 16:2: Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 16:3: They were saying among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” 16:4: for it was very big. Looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back. 16:5: Entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were amazed. 16:6: He said to them, “Don’t be amazed. You seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen. He is not here. Behold, the place where they laid him! 16:7: But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he said to you.'” 16:8: They went out,{TR adds “quickly”} and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had come on them. They said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid. 16:9: Now when he had risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 16:10: She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 16:11: When they heard that he was alive, and had been seen by her, they disbelieved. 16:12: After these things he was revealed in another form to two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. 16:13: They went away and told it to the rest. They didn’t believe them, either. 16:14: Afterward he was revealed to the eleven themselves as they sat at the table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they didn’t believe those who had seen him after he had risen. 16:15: He said to them, “Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16:16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who disbelieves will be condemned. 16:17: These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new languages; 16:18: they will take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will in no way hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” 16:19: So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 16:20: They went out, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.