The Passion of Christ

[Tonio]

Originally posted by sleuth14
I don't understand what the Jews are afraid of. If the movie is historically accurate, what is the problem?

I think what the Jewish groups are concerned about is the claim that "all" Jews were to blame for the crucifixion of Christ. That claim originated centuries later. It's pure hogwash. For one thing, the Apostles and all the other early Christians were born Jewish. For another, from my reading of the Bible, the Pharisees were the ones who sought to kill Jesus, because they saw him as a threat to their power.

 

[itsbob]

Originally posted by sleuth14
I heard Mel has been editing out some of the dialogue in the movie to appease those who claim the movie is anti-semitic.

I hope he doesn't edit it until it winds up being crap.
I don't understand what the Jews are afraid of. If the movie is historically accurate, what is the problem?

That's like someone making a movie about the Civil War and them editing out all the parts about southerners treating slaves badly. It happened! It's history! You can't change it so let's not change it in film.

He removed some captioning where the jews are screaming for blood in Hebrew(?).. the audio is still there, he just removed the captioning..

 

[TWLs wife]

It sounds like a good movie to see. I beleve in Christ.

 

[fantasyillusion]

Originally posted by tlatchaw
I think that the point most folks are missing on the anti-semitic front is that MANKIND put Christ to death, not just Jews/Romans. He died for the sins of all, therefore I am just a guilty as anyone in that mob shouting "Barabas!" Yet I am forgiven.

i couldn't of said it better... Because this is in a religious thread I have a chance to rant for a moment...

When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree, they were abolished from the Garden of Eden and sin was born. None of us go sin-free and no mater how perfect we try, we will fall short because of their error. Christ was born to die - for us. His blood signed a contract that allowed all of us to enter. Before he was born, he knew he was going to die for us, all of mankind. John 3:16 (KJV) - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." By giving your full self over to Christ, you sign your name to the same contract that Christ signed when he was cruxified... if it wasn't the Romans or Jews, it would of been some other... if Pilate said "No, I will not condem this man to death" then another would of stepped up and said "Fine, then I will" Jesus took form of a man to die for our sins...

I just think those screaming that this movie is anti-semitic are being a tad ignorant to why it all happened...

just a rant...

 

[Penn]

I have been getting e-mails from my friends from church, who've had friends and relatives attend private screenings of the film. They say watching this movie is not like anything they've ever witnessed before.

They call it an "encounter", they say the film goes beyond what words can portray.

It is all about the last 12 hours of Christ's time on earth, and according to them it is entirely accurate to the Four Gospels, with included information from the diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich(1774-1824) and Mary of Agreda's "The City of God"; apparently that's it.

It's all in ancient Aramaic, but Mel Gibson hopes/believes that the visual storytelling of the scenes will make it abundantly clear what was happening.

I sure want to see it when it's available in this area.

 

[Tonio]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53205-2004Feb18.html

(The movie) has been accused of vicious anti-Semitism and hailed as the most effective tool for Christian evangelism in two millennia -- in both cases, by people who have not seen the film...

The movie's opponents compare it to the Passion plays that through many centuries labeled Jews as Christ-killers and sparked violence against Jews. In recent years, many Passion plays have changed their tone and content. "There have been important changes in theological understanding that this film appears to be thumbing its nose at," said David Friedman, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League.

 

[TripleJ]

I guess I'll have to watch the movie to see what all the fuss is about, I hate talking about something in ignorance?

 

[watercolor]

What's ignorant is to not talk about it TripleJ. Why not put why you want to see or not see the movie, your thoughts, etc.

 

[BudoPo]

Originally posted by sleuth14
I hope he doesn't edit it until it winds up being crap.
I don't understand what the Jews are afraid of. If the movie is historically accurate, what is the problem?

That's the concern: Scripture isn't completely accurate historically (ie, Jews vs. Romans being the ones who him, etc).

I probably won't see it, just because it's not my type of movie. I might watch it when it comes out on satellite/cable, though.

 

[justin anemone]

It's also brilliant marketing...

The producers and promoters of the film decided that if they MADE it an issue, it would increase viewership. Then, they embarked on a promotions campaign through the Churches nationwide. It's a great move; word of mouth has been tremendous on the film, and the slight "controversy" has also piqued everyone's interest. They're gonna sell a million tickets to this one.

 

[Penn]

Ok, I do have a few questions on this whole matter.

In all my readings of the Bible, taking the Four Gospels to whit: the Jewish populace as a whole did not want to kill, or do away with Jesus Christ.

The chief anger came from a religious group called the Pharisees, if I read it right. The Chief Priest was a man called Caiaphus, who wanted Jesus Christ dead. They wanted Christ killed for a number of reasons:

They thought his teachings were blasphemy.

They were afraid if His teachings took hold, their ideas and teachings, their practices would be overturned, making them irrelevent.

That if He was in fact, proclaimed King of Israel, the uneasy peace they had forged with Rome would be shattered; that Rome would lay siege to the land, and that they would be driven from what power they had ascended to as the religious leaders of the land of Israel.

Again, if I got it correct, the Pharisees did not have the authority to put one of their own, (Jews) to death, on the charges they were claiming.

That is why they turned Jesus Christ over to the Romans - to Pilate - for punishment, which they assumed would be His death.

He was questioned, beaten unmercifully, questioned again, and still Pilate said he could not find grounds to kill Him.

But the Pharisees insisted, and Pilate agreed to an old Jewish custom of presenting the crowd a choice of two "criminals"; one to be set free, and one to be condemned to die.

They were Jesus Christ, and another man, a zealot named Barabas.

When presented to the crowd, who had been whipped into a frenzy by Caiaphus' supporters, they roared - "Give us Barabas"
- sealing Christs' fate.

Thus, I am curious as to how the Jews can/could lay claim to the idea that they did not cause Jesus' death?

Yes, the Romans carried out the Crucifixion, but the religious Jews foisted it upon them.

Anybody see it differently?

 

[Penn]

Originally posted by *archimedes*
I thought God killed Jesus. Weren't these events fulfillment of a prophecy from God? So these people didn't have any choice, right? They had to fulfill the prophecies. God killed Jesus, right?

Archi, that's where the enigma, the dilemma comes in to play.

It was foretold in Isaiah 53, I think, that the Son of Man would first not be believed in His own hometown, that He would be offered up as a sacrifice, an atonement for our sins.

That he would be beaten and killed for our salvation; I don't need to quote the chapter, since most of us have read it more than a few times, and anyone who has a Bible, well feel free to acquaint yourself with it, please.

And yes, you raise a heck of a good point - They didn't have much a of a choice, indeed, if scripture was to be fulfilled.

But, that wasn't the point I was driving at; was any one faction of people responsible any more than another?

Remember it is said God called the Jews His chosen people, might He not have used them to fulfill His prophesy?

I cannot get into His head anymore that you can, but is that a possibility?

 

[tlatchaw]

My understanding is that sin must be propitiated by sacrifice. For years mankind sacrificed all sorts of things - animals, money, grain, people, etc to atone for their sins, but nothing was really right.

Jesus Christ is the perfect and sinless Son of God, fully God and fully man as well. The ultimate sacrifice. His death removes the sins of all people that believe in him as their savior. Therefore since we all benefit from his death, we are all responsible for it. As I stated in an earlier posting, I am as resposible for his crucifixion as anyone that was in that crowd shouting for the release of Barabas that day.

Doubtless some folks will twist this story of faith and sacrifice to their own hateful ends. Evil works that way, taking something good and twisting it until it becomes some confused reason to do horrible things to our brothers. God turns the evil to good use, however- remember our national spirit after 9-11? Not just the rah-rah flag stuff, but do you remember that most people were just naturally more patient and sympathetic to the needs of others? I for one became much more serious about my religion after that day. Doubtless others did too. And if you want a more concrete goodness it did in my life here's one: I've participated in blood drives regularly ever since. After I saw the loss of all those poor people, the needles suddenly didn't seem like such a big deal anymore.

** end of soap box **

 

[tlatchaw]

Originally posted by *archimedes*
I don't follow your logic here. I have benefited from the invention of the wheel, but I am certainly not responsible for it, in part or in whole.

I see your point. Allow me to rephrase that thought if you will:

Since we are all sinners we all created the conditions necessary to require God's forgiveness. Christ died to atone for our sins, therefore we are partly responsible. Better?

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by penncam
Ok, I do have a few questions on this whole matter.

In all my readings of the Bible, taking the Four Gospels to whit: the Jewish populace as a whole did not want to kill, or do away with Jesus Christ.

The chief anger came from a religious group called the Pharisees, if I read it right. The Chief Priest was a man called Caiaphus, who wanted Jesus Christ dead. They wanted Christ killed for a number of reasons:

They thought his teachings were blasphemy.

They were afraid if His teachings took hold, their ideas and teachings, their practices would be overturned, making them irrelevent.

That if He was in fact, proclaimed King of Israel, the uneasy peace they had forged with Rome would be shattered; that Rome would lay siege to the land, and that they would be driven from what power they had ascended to as the religious leaders of the land of Israel.

Again, if I got it correct, the Pharisees did not have the authority to put one of their own, (Jews) to death, on the charges they were claiming.

That is why they turned Jesus Christ over to the Romans - to Pilate - for punishment, which they assumed would be His death.

He was questioned, beaten unmercifully, questioned again, and still Pilate said he could not find grounds to kill Him.

But the Pharisees insisted, and Pilate agreed to an old Jewish custom of presenting the crowd a choice of two "criminals"; one to be set free, and one to be condemned to die.

They were Jesus Christ, and another man, a zealot named Barabas.

When presented to the crowd, who had been whipped into a frenzy by Caiaphus' supporters, they roared - "Give us Barabas"
- sealing Christs' fate.

Thus, I am curious as to how the Jews can/could lay claim to the idea that they did not cause Jesus' death?

Yes, the Romans carried out the Crucifixion, but the religious Jews foisted it upon them.

Anybody see it differently?

Penn, from my reading, I think you have it right. I think the idea of blaming "all" Jews came centuries later.

I turned in this question to the columnist I mentioned earlier: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39521-2004Feb13.html

Southern Maryland: Marc, you're exactly right about the supporters and critics who have judged a movie without seeing it.

Still, I can appreciate the ADL's concerns, and not just because of the centuries of Jew-bashing Passion plays. Remember the preview that Gibson held in D.C.? The Post quoted Laura Ingraham as saying the movie would "drive the anti-Christian entertainment elite crazy," which was clearly anti-Semitic code. That type of code is common among the rhetoric from the religious right, which was well represented at the "Passion" preview. It's intended to invoke ugly myths about the supposed Jewish cabals in entertainment and higher education.

Marc Fisher: Right -- there is too much of that sort of code talk. I've been reading a lot on the evangelical web sites that are pushing the Gibson movie and there are way too many references to how this flick is not made by those "clever Hollywood elites," and other such snide anti-Semitic code words.

 

[ceo_pte]

Reading an article in the bookstore the other night, there seemed to be alot of backlash from some of the producers/actors in Hollywood.
I am glad to see that Mel stuck to his guns and I honestly pray/hope that this movie is a bigger hit than Star Wars. I hope he makes Billions. He's gonna get my money.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by *archimedes*
So any criticism of Hollyweird is now anti-Semetic? Here's some code for them. GFYJ.

You have a point, but I don't think that's what the columnist meant. I agree that a phrase like "sneaky Hollywood elite" is a code phrase. It plays into myths about Jews (they're all allegedly devious and cabalistic) while emphasizing that many Jews work in Hollywood. I have older relatives who believe all those myths. When I had a Jewish roommate in college, my father lectured me about those supposed "facts" about the Jewish people. I didn't have the courage then to tell him he was full of ####.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by *archimedes*
Dude, 'sneaky' is your word, it doesn't appear in the quote anywhere. 'Anti-Christian' and 'clever' were the words from the quote.

Oops. Thanks for the correction.

 

[ceo_pte]

I prefer not to use clever words to describe some of the idiots in hollywood... I think too many people are worried about offending someone by speaking the truth.

Who was that fat guy that made comments from that award show last year about Bush?

I have no problem calling people like that, STUPID!

 

[Flo]

I put yes, that I would go see the movie, though I am not much on going to theaters. I may have to wait until it comes out on DVD, but I definitely want to see it.