Mel Gibsons The Passion - Page 1 - InterfaithFamily.com

Page 1

< Previous

Next >

Mel's Gibson's "The Passion"

Author: Edmund Case (---.0.53.206.conversent.net)
Date: 02-03-04 11:19

February 3, 2004. There's been a lot of publicity about Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie, "The Passion," with discussion about whether it will lead to more anti-Semitism. Seeing the movie may be a very interesting experience for interfaith couples, and we're planning to address that subject in an upcoming issue. We welcome your thoughts on this new discussion.

^ top

Re: THE PASSION

Author: jan (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: 02-19-04 21:44

THOSE WHO ARE ANTI-SEMITIC, WILL BE ANTI-SEMITIC NO MATTER IF THEY VIEW THIS MOVIE OR NOT. THIS MOVIE IS NOT ABOUT JEWISH PREJUDICE. IT IS ABOUT FEAR OF THE UNEXPECTED, FEAR OF CHANGE AND FEAR OF DEALING WITH HISTORICAL TRUTH. IT IS FACT THAT THE JEWS TOOK A VERBAL PART IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST. HE REPRESENTED A CHANGE THEY COULD NOT DEAL WITH, THEREFORE THEY TURNED HIM OVER TO THE ROMANS TO BE CRUCIFIED. IT IS FACT THAT JESUS WHO WAS A JEW WAS TURNED OVER TO THE BARBARIAN ROMANS BY HIS OWN KIND, THE JEWISH PEOPLE.
THIS IS HISTORY OF THE PAST AND YOU CAN NOT NOW HATE A PEOPLE FOR WHAT WAS DONE SO LONG AGO BY OTHERS OF THERE BACKGROUND. YOU MUST REMEMBER THE FIRST CHRISTIANS WERE JEWS. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, WE ARE VERY INTERWOVEN.

^ top

Re: What historical facts?

Author: Ellen (---.as21.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net)
Date: 02-20-04 12:06

Jan,

You write << THOSE WHO ARE ANTI-SEMITIC, WILL BE ANTI-SEMITIC NO MATTER IF THEY VIEW THIS MOVIE OR NOT.>>

What about people who are not yet antisemitic and will become so after they see it?

and <<IT IS FACT THAT THE JEWS TOOK A VERBAL PART IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST. HE REPRESENTED A CHANGE THEY COULD NOT DEAL WITH, THEREFORE THEY TURNED HIM OVER TO THE ROMANS TO BE CRUCIFIED. IT IS FACT THAT JESUS WHO WAS A JEW WAS TURNED OVER TO THE BARBARIAN ROMANS BY HIS OWN KIND, THE JEWISH PEOPLE. >>

It is a belief of some people who accept the gospels as true, not a verifiable historical fact. We have absolutely no evidence from any credible, independent, reliable source that these events ever even occured or these people even existed. Our only source for this story is the scripture of your religion. For you to come here, to a website that encourages Jewish choices, and profess these views is less than appropriate. When you say *THE* Jews, do you think you could be a bit more specific, or do you mean to implicate all of us? Me, too? My as yet unborn grandchildren?
What we need to be doing here is overcoming prejudice, slander, and hatred, not feeding it.

<<YOU MUST REMEMBER THE FIRST CHRISTIANS WERE JEWS.>>

So? What is that supposed to mean? Do you think Jews don't know that? A lot of the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition were Jews, too. Remember Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb? They were Jews, too. Is their being Jewish supposed to make their actions somehow acceptable in Jewish eyes?

^ top

Re: What historical facts?

Author: jan (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: 02-20-04 23:10

YOU LOOK AT THIS WITH THE ATTITUDE THAT MAKES ME FEEL THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO TURN WHAT I SAID INTO ANTI-SEMITISM. YOUR WRONG, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M, DOING. THE ROMANS KILLED JESUS WITH THE BACKING OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE WHO WERE THEIR WITH JESUS AT THAT
TIME. YOU CAN NOT BLAME THE CHILDREN FOR THE SINS OF THEIR FATHER.
WE SHOULD NOT BLAME ALL JEWS FOR THIS. NOT YOU OR YOU CHILD OR GRANDCHILD. IF YOU CAN NOT BELEIVE WHAT HAPPEN TO JESUS IS TRUE AS IN THE BIBLE, THEN WHY BELEIVE THAT MOSES REALLY WAS A MAN OF GOD.THIS IS ALSO IN THE BIBLE, BUT YOU DON'T COMPLETELY BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ IN THE BIBLE. DO I HAVE IT RIGHT. YOU DIDN'T LIVE IN THAT TIME, SO WHY BELIEVE IN ANY OF IT.

^ top

Re: rabbi boteach

Author: scott (---.ipt.aol.com)
Date: 02-21-04 00:19

Rabbi Boteach couldnt be more correct in his article.

This film will do more harm than good to the Jewish people, though we may not see its affects immediatelty. At a time when Jews and Christians are making efforts to change long held beliefs about the role of the Jews in the death of Jesus, this film comes up from behind and smacks these efforts in the face.

The gospels are at best loose historical accounts, at ***best*** about the life of Jesus. Christians believe the gospels to be true. But sometimes ones beliefs can cloud one’s mind, causing one to confuse truth with facts. Truth and fact are not synonymous. Many religious people dont understand this, and prsent their beleifs as fact, when in-fact, they are nothing more than words people beleive to be true.

This is unfortunate, because the fact is, is that the romans crucified Jesus, not the Jews, and the new testament blatantly tells us this. Pilate ordered Jesus death, not the Jews. Thats what the new testaament states. Extra-biblical historical account testify to the type of man pilate was, which is starkly contrasted in the New Tesstaament. It is reasonable, therfore, to presume that pilate, as the gospels say, had jesus killed. It makes even more sense, when one asks why would fledglin christian sect, wishing to spread its beliefs thoughout the roman empire wish to paint Pilate, a Roman, in a negative light?
Logically, they wouldnt- not when you are trying to spread a religion to romans and gain converts among them. (telling them they are going to hell if they dont accept also helps out too) It would make no sense to make a roman as the villan of the story, so the Gospel writters blame the Jews.

Many would find this a compelling reason not to blame the Jews. Gibson and many others however, ignore historical reality and facts, in favor of what they believe is true, what the church has taught itn the past, (and some churches still do teach) that the Jews killed Jesus.

WHen christians(or anybody) confuse religious truth for facts, their judments become clouded, and they inadvetently ignore the actual facts, like the fact the the different gospels present different versions of what happened. If this is the case, then how could any one gospel be factual to begin with?!

Moving into the 5th century, many Christians often fail to take into account the socio-political environment the new testament was composed in, and the impact it woukd have had, had the Gospel writers blatantly blamed the Romans, and not the Jews, for Jesus death.
Whent the new testament was codified in the 400's, The Jews, in the eyes of the fledgliung Roman church, had to be the ones who killed Jesus. Why? Chrsitianity was now the official religion of the Empire. Had the church officially blamed a Roman for the death of Jesus, it would have effectively blamed itself, and the roman government and its citizens, in the same way in which all generations of jews have been made culpable for Jesus death, - essentially Christians would have had only themselves to blame in the same manner. What Christian would want to do that? Therefore, the blame was placed on the Jews. This gave the Roman chruch an eternal villan which it could blame, and unite aganist. And thats just what the church did shortly after the newtestament was codified. Laws against Jews in the roman empire became more and greater in number and severity after the codifying of the new testament. Many christians until the 20th century considered Jews their enemy, and some still do. (though I'm sure thats no one who visits this webv page)But it all boils down to the fact that Jews were blamed for Jesus death for socio-political reasons, nothing more.

Is Mel gibson an anti-semite? AFter having seen his interniew on primetime live, its really hard to say. I'm not as certain as rabbi boteach is. I dont think he is anti-semitic, but at the same time, i dont think he isnt, either.... if that makes sense. In short, I think he is ignorant and he doesnty know any better than to believe the way he does, and we can blame the church, and his father for that.

In Gibsons mind, as in the minds of many other christians, the differences in the gospel accounts, like the ones rabbi boteach mentions, are irrelevant. If they were relevant, it stands to reason the Gibson would take a different view on the culpability of the Jews in the death of Jesus. These differences are irrelevant because they pose a threat to the faith of gibson, and many christians.

Gibson's film will undoubtedly re-inforce the notion that the Jews killed Jesus, and do so on a huge level. But what impact will that have? Probably, very little. People in this country, anyway, arent going to go out in massive numbers harrasing Jews. Most have too much to loose by comiting misdemeanors and felonies like that.

^ top

Re: jan

Author: scott (---.ipt.aol.com)
Date: 02-21-04 18:52

<<THOSE WHO ARE ANTI-SEMITIC, WILL BE ANTI-SEMITIC NO MATTER IF THEY VIEW THIS MOVIE OR NOT. THIS MOVIE IS NOT ABOUT JEWISH PREJUDICE. IT IS ABOUT FEAR OF THE UNEXPECTED, FEAR OF CHANGE AND FEAR OF DEALING WITH HISTORICAL TRUTH.>>

Jan, do you mean historical fact? There is a differnce betwen truth and fact. The new testament is a lot less fact and a lot more truth(to those who beleive)As for the movie being about the fear of dealing with this? Its hardly that at all.

Mel gibson has decided to focus heavily on the notion that Jesus suffered greatly because of the Jews. He portrays this graphically in his film. Is it no wonder Jews are worried how the world will react?

<<IT IS FACT THAT THE JEWS TOOK A VERBAL PART IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST. HE REPRESENTED A CHANGE THEY COULD NOT DEAL WITH, THEREFORE THEY TURNED HIM OVER TO THE ROMANS TO BE CRUCIFIED. IT IS FACT THAT JESUS WHO WAS A JEW WAS TURNED OVER TO THE BARBARIAN ROMANS BY HIS OWN KIND, THE JEWISH PEOPLE.>>

A small band of Jews turned Jesus in to the authorities. Most Jews never even knew Jesus. Yet, the lable of god-killers has been placed on the heads of Jews since that time.
Jesus calimed to bee the messiah and the son of God. In the greco-roman world in the 30's c.e., thats just something you didnt do. DOing so could get you killed,-and sure enough it got Jesus killed, why? because to do so was to make a direrct threat to the roman empire, and rome wouldnt have that. Killing people is how they dealt with that. Jesus wasnt stupid. He surely would have known this, having lived and grown up under roman rule.

***I believe Jesus is responsible for his own death, not romans, and certainly not the Jews.**** By knowingly doing something that was illegal in his days....claiming to be a saviour, and threatening what would have been precieved by the romans as revolution. The Jewish people knew many more might die if good ol unpredicastble pilate went on one of his masscres to stop find/ stop Jesus preaching. If it can be said that the Jews played a role n the death of Jesus, then the Jews did the right thing. One Jew died so many more of his contemporaries wouldnt.

<<THIS IS HISTORY OF THE PAST AND YOU CAN NOT NOW HATE A PEOPLE FOR WHAT WAS DONE SO LONG AGO BY OTHERS OF THEIR BACKGROUND. YOU MUST REMEMBER THE FIRST CHRISTIANS WERE JEWS. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, WE ARE VERY INTERWOVEN. >>

You make a good point, the first christians were Jews. Do you think they taught that the Jews were responsible collectively in any way for the death of Jesus? I would hardley think so.

^ top

Re: What historical facts?

Author: Ellen (---.as28.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net)
Date: 02-23-04 14:17

Jan,

You wrote " IF YOU CAN NOT BELEIVE WHAT HAPPEN TO JESUS IS TRUE AS IN THE BIBLE, THEN WHY BELEIVE THAT MOSES REALLY WAS A MAN OF GOD.THIS IS ALSO IN THE BIBLE,"

Those books which you call the "New Testament" are not part of our Bible.

^ top

Re: "gospels are at best loose historical accounts"

Author: Margaret (68.156.244.---)
Date: 02-23-04 17:33

Scott & Ellen,

There is enough evidence to prove the gospels as true & accurate.

"We have absolutely no evidence from any credible, independent, reliable source that these events ever even occured or these people even existed."

Josephus, a first-century historian who's well known among scholars gives corroboration of Jesus in a writing titled "Testimonium Flavianum". There's a consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage about Jesus as a whole is authentic.

You must also examine the circumstantial evidence of Jesus.

The disiples died for their beliefs. The follows were discouraged & depressed upon the death of Jesus because they believed anyone crucified was accursed by God. But a short time later they abandoned their accupations & recommitted themselves to spreading a specific message. They would spend the rest of their lives proclaiming this without payoff from a human point of view. They faced hardship, ridicule, imprisonment, & some of them execution in torturous ways. They all claimed to have seen Jesus alive and went to their deaths defending that belief. It is important to note that people will die for their religious beliefs if they sincerely believe they're true, but people won't die for their religious beliefs if they know their beliefs are false.

The conversion of those that didn't believe who Jesus claimed to be during his life....but converted upon seeing him after he had arisen.. His brother James was embarrassed by what Jesus claimed to be but, Josephus tells that James, the brother of Jesus, was stoned to death because of his belief in his brother.

It is important to note that both Jews & Christians base their love of God on faith. It is an individual question as to what you will find convincing for yourself.

If you are going to make claims of "no evidence" do the research first. Otherwise you are no better then those that are anti-semitic. Prejudice goes both ways. And ignorance spreads hate.

^ top

Re: General discussion

Author: Hope (---.brlngt01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: 02-24-04 13:54

The problem with this retelling is that all the responsibility for Jesus's death is blamed on the Jews and the Romans and their leader are just sympathetic dolts who gave into the Jews. This isn't accurate. The Jews were under the control of the Romans at that time, not the other way around. Crucifixion was a nasty punishment thought up and carried out by the Romans against thousands and thousands of Jews at that time, including many popular rabbis. This is a part of Jewish history as well. For the movie to lay the blame and completely villafy the Jews is innacurate, and I do fear for what it will lead to around the world and even for my kids here in the good ole USA.

^ top

Re: margaret

Author: scott (12.47.98.---)
Date: 02-24-04 14:12

<<There is enough evidence to prove the gospels as true & accurate.

Josephus, a first-century historian who's well known among scholars gives corroboration of Jesus in a writing titled "Testimonium Flavianum". There's a consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage about Jesus as a whole is authentic.>>

Josesphus does not recount the gospel story of Jesus existence. It seems that josephus recounts basic understood facts, Jesus existed, had a folowoing , and died at the hands of the Romans, etc.
Dont get me wrong, I accept that Jesus existed, that he was a Jewish preacher with a small following in Judea, and that he was crucified according to roman custom for being what then would have been considered a capitol offesne, that is, claiming to be the messiah.
What josephus does not support is the relgious claims of Jesus followers, including that the notion the the Jews crucified Jesus.

Most scholars agree that the passge in josephus was embelsihed by later christian writers:
see this website. I happen to agree with their views, because simply put, they make sense.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html

<<You must also examine the circumstantial evidence of Jesus.

<<The disiples died for their beliefs. >>
So what, people die everyday for their beliefs, that is evidence of nothing.

<<The follows were discouraged & depressed upon the death of Jesus because they believed anyone crucified was accursed by God. But a short time later they abandoned their accupations & recommitted themselves to spreading a specific message. They would spend the rest of their lives proclaiming this without payoff from a human point of view. They faced hardship, ridicule, imprisonment, & some of them execution in torturous ways. They all claimed to have seen Jesus alive and went to their deaths defending that belief. It is important to note that people will die for their religious beliefs if they sincerely believe they're true, but people won't die for their religious beliefs if they know their beliefs are false.>>

That doesnt make sense, if they know their relgious beliefs are false, then they woukdnt follow them at all, let alone die for them.

This 'circumstantial' evidence yo quote is not evidence at all. Just because poeple die for what they beleivem that does not make that beleif a fact/true.

<<The conversion of those that didn't believe who Jesus claimed to be during his life....but converted upon seeing him after he had arisen.. His brother James was embarrassed by what Jesus claimed to be but, Josephus tells that James, the brother of Jesus, was stoned to death because of his belief in his brother.>>

Okay, James was killed because he beleived in Jesus. But that is not proof that Jesus is who he cliamed to be. Its only proof that he had followere who stongly beleived in him.

<<It is important to note that both Jews & Christians base their love of God on faith. It is an individual question as to what you will find convincing for yourself. >>

Yes, faith is very individual, but also, at least from a Jewish presepctive, communal as well.
Chrisitianity has some nice beleifs that it has incoroportaed into its faith. SOme I can accept as they are more generic beliefs, many steming from the old testament, the Jewish bible.
But I canot accept the notion, persoanlly, that Jesus was the messaih, son of god, etc. These are beleifes, and they cannot be proven. But it is not for that reason I cant accept these beleifs, they also are not cosistent with the Jewish scripture, as jews (not christians) interpret such scripture.

There is also the "jews killed Jesus' thing. This is a beleife, long held by many christians. Those who hold this beleif assume it to be true and fact.
The new mel gibson movie certainly takes this perspective. The fact is that the romansd nailed Jesus to a cross, not the Jews. Mel gibson takes poetic liscence to a new low in jhis movie. He paints the Jews out to be blood thiirsty who only want one thing, Jesus to suffewr and die. This was irresponsible on the part oif gibson , and anyone who truly berlives that this is as it was, is irresponsible to think so, too.

If you are going to make claims of "no evidence" do the research first. Otherwise you are no better then those that are anti-semitic. Prejudice goes both ways. And ignorance spreads hate.

The gospels are not evidence, margarette. The account is Josephus is likely an embelished account of Jesus. It is certainly not evidnce that the gospels are true.

^ top

this discussion board

Author: Edmund Case (---.0.53.206.conversent.net)
Date: 02-24-04 15:38

I want to advise people who are submitting postings to this discussion board that if your posting is not civil or respectful it will not be posted.
Several postings that have been submitted yesterday and today will not be posted for that reason.

^ top

Scott

Author: Margaret (---.mia.bellsouth.net)
Date: 02-24-04 16:39

I replied believing that you wanted to have a civil conversation but your insertion of "margarette" into the last paragraph makes it quite obvious you are being condescending. I can understand your desire for a "dominant" position in the conversation but there is no reason to be offensive.

"""Chrisitianity has some nice beleifs that it has incoroportaed into its faith. SOme I can accept as they are more generic beliefs, many steming from the old testament, the Jewish bible."""

All Christian beliefs start with the Old Testament of the Bible and then add to it with the New Testament. I can not begin to tell you the number of Jews who are actually in disbelief that we read the exact same bible.

And my "We have absolutely no evidence from any credible, independent, reliable source that these events ever even occured or these people even existed." was taken from Ellen's post. And my point was that these people did exist. You can not try to use the defense that there is not evidence to discredit all of Christianity. These "people" did exist so thus there is a probability that the curcumstances took place.

Please do not assume that all Christian think the Jews killed Jesus. I never in all of my life have ever thought that statement. Jesus died for the sins of all mankind. Which means I killed Jesus, my parents killed Jesus, my siblings, friends, and so on....

I know there are mean hateful people in the world that will use any means possible to spread their hate, but I do not believe this was the intention of this movie. Mel Gibson truly believes he is giving a gift to Christians in the form of this movie & I personally can not wait to witness it with my own eyes.

And please do not be so blinded by your own defenses that you are unwilling to continue healthy dialog.

Thank you & have a wonderful day.

^ top

Re: margaret

Author: Scott (---.ipt.aol.com)
Date: 02-25-04 00:24

Margaret,

I did not mean to come across offensive or to seem 'uncivil'. I am sorry if I offended you.

We may read the same bible(the old testament)but we do read it quite differently. I read the new teastament not as a religious document about god the way a christian would, but as a loose historical account, a tiny window into the development of the church in antiquity. Whats really neat to do is look at all the books that never made it into the New testament. A lot can be learned from them about what early christians thought abt Jesus.

<<And my point was that these people did exist. You can not try to use the defense that there is not evidence to discredit all of Christianity. These "people" did exist so thus there is a probability that the curcumstances took place.>>

The people whom the New testament talks about may have indeed existed. The fact is, is that we dont know for certain., no matter how much we vbeleive.

<<Please do not assume that all Christian think the Jews killed Jesus. I never in all of my life have ever thought that statement. Jesus died for the sins of all mankind. Which means I killed Jesus, my parents killed Jesus, my siblings, friends, and so on....>>

I know not all chrisitans think the Jews killed Jesus, but there are quite a few who think the Jews in fact killed Jesus. I'm glad to hear you do not sucbscribe tothe notiuon that Jews killed Jesus. ALso, i thjink your interpretation is interesting.

<<I know there are mean hateful people in the world that will use any means possible to spread their hate, but I do not believe this was the intention of this movie. Mel Gibson truly believes he is giving a gift to Christians in the form of this movie & I personally can not wait to witness it with my own eyes.>>

I think mel gibson wanted to tell a story. I think he views his religion as something benevolent to mankind. But his movie focuses alot on the Jews and the role they really did not play in Jesus' death.
I can only come to one conclusion, that Gibson trully believes in the content of his film, and that he trully believes the Jews killed Jesus, despite what he may say in public.
The fact is is that gibson had an oportunity in this film to absolve the Jews of the death of jesus, or at the very least to minimize their role. He didnt take this opportunity. Rather, he has villified the Jews and painted us in a more than unflatering light.
I think mel gibson is ignorant, plain and simple. I think it must give him comfort in some way to know that it was not (in his mind) the gentiles who killed Jesus, but the Jews. Some people feel they need to beleive this for religious reasons. Mel gibson is one of these people. He is spiritually and emotionally immature in this respect. Niot because he acpets christianity, no, but because he cant let go of the idea that the Jews killed Jesus. You see, to be christian, one need not subscribe to the idea that the Jews killed jesus, and you and others like yourself are proof of that.

I have a freind whose grandparents were Jewish. Not long ago, his grandmother died. He is christian. He was cocnvicned by the church that because his grandmother wasnt chrsitian she was going to hell- and at first he didnt see anything wrong with that. After several months of talking with him, he fianlly realized he didnt have to believe such a negaitve belief and he could still be a chrsitian. Too bad mel gibson hasnt come around to thinking like this.

Gibsons 'gift' to the christians will be a lump of coal for the Jews. The Jews for obvious reasons dont like being protryaed as the one who killed Jesus. Nothing good has come of it for the Jews. rom a histoical prespective, the romans killed Jesus, period. It took the catholic church some 1500 years to change that belief, officvially anyway. Old beliefs die hard I guess.

rom a histoical prespective, the romans killed Jesus, period. It took the catholic church some 1500 years to change that belief, officvially anyway. Old beliefs die hard I guess. It took 1600 years fdr rome to channge this belief. Old habbits die hard i guess. Chanege is a slow proicess.

You mentioned above that we read the same bibile, an i agreed. But I have known many christians in my life, and more ofthen then not, they have explaimed to me that what they read in the Bible is inerrant and unquestionable. My wife converted from chrosiotanty, and thats how she was taught to look at the bible. Jews, for the most part read the bible differently, questioning it extensively. We have a volume of lituature called the talmud, which is almost nothing but questions aboutthe torah. Its so big, that reading one page a day, it takes 7 years to complete.

F
There is nothing worse than when people choose to beleive somthing with syuch a negative consequnce towards others. And make no mistake, religious beleif is a choice .

I am curious to see this movie, i too will see it when it comes out, but for different reasons than you. I want to see just what it is speocically mell gibson and some christians are choosing to believe.

I hope you werent offended by this, it wasnt meant to be.

Good night.

^ top

The Passion of the Christ

Author: Margaret (---.mia.bellsouth.net)
Date: 02-25-04 11:57

How I wish we could discuss this face to face. To be able to see the passion in each other's eyes when we discuss the love of our faith, our spirituality, and the love of God.

I want you to understand that I am a devote Christian with such a love for God. I also have a deep passionate love for my Jewish husband and my three Children. I love reading and rereading the stories of the Bible. The stories of Ruth, Nehemian, Moses, Noah all reconfirm that God is the all-knowing and the great planner. The stories of Jesus reconfirms the love God had for all of us and as I restudy his life and his teachings it reconfirms how perfect our God is.

This is not a discussion on the differences of our faith. There are those with phd's and lots of letters behind their names who are much more suited to do that. So lets agree that we each believe deeply and the slinging of words in this forum is not going to alter those convictions in any way.

Scott, I will agree on the differences of our reading of the Old Testament. Christians believe the Old Testament was written to speak of Christ's coming.

Does the New Testament blame the Jews for the death of Jesus?? Jesus was Jewish and all of his disciples were Jewish. So it is impossible to make a valid "us vs. them" argument. Did Jesus make uneasy some of the religious leaders? Very much so!! But not all the Jewish leaders were depicted as being behind Jesus' arrest and Roman trial. Nicodemus, a Pharisees leader, met with Jesus to discuss theological questions and later provided the spices used in His burial. Joseph of Arimathea provided the tomb in which Jesus was laid.

The New Testament places blame not at the feet of the Jews, but The New Testament clearly says that Jesus died as a sacrifical lamb of God for all the sins of the entire world.

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29)

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; (1 Peter 3:18)

It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. (1 Timothy 1:15)

Evil men often use religion to justify their immoral actions. And if people walk away from this movie with the misconception that the Jews are to be held responsible for the death of Christ, there is nothing that you or I can say to change that already incorrectly preconceived notion. They already sit in their homes & fester their prejudice and hate. The already do internet searchs to reconfirm that it's okay with God to hate and slander.

Am I sorry for this? Yes. But not because I can take ownership of their sins because I am also a Christian. But because I am a Christian and deeply believe in loving others as God loves us. Any violence and hate toward any other person saddens me because I know any violence and hate saddens God.

I am going to see The Passion of the Christ with my 16 year old daughter at 4pm today. We are taking a box of tissues with us. I will cry as I watch them beat him and crucify him because my faith has taught me that each and every one of my sins was another strike upon his back and another thorn forced into his skull.

I wish each of you a wonderful day.

^ top

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and now Mel?????

Author: Ellen (---.as4.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net)
Date: 02-25-04 12:15

Margaret,

Perhaps the only thing more dangerous than the antisemitism of such movies is the arrogant manner in which its promoters are trying to paint anyone who chooses not to see it as closed minded. Refusing to read the New Testament might be closed minded, but the last time I checked, there was no Book of Mel in the New Testament. This is not The Word of God, folks; this is just a movie! A movie by someone who is if not a documented antisemite himself, then at least someone on record as sympathetic to documented Holocaust deniers. One need not be "ignorant" or "prejudiced" to find something better to do with the price of a movie ticket.

I've heard enough from people who have seen previews and I've read enough in Newsweek and New Yorker to know that this is just an extraordinarily graphic dramatization of a public execution. Such a violent, bloody one that it's rated R. I personally do not care to see graphic violence and buckets of blood when I go to the movies. I stay away from lots of movies for this reason. I see no reason to spend my money and help this man get richer just so that I can sit there getting sick to my stomach and covering my eyes for two hours. No amount of name calling and taunting on your part will compell me to do so.

^ top

Re: Mel's Gibson's "The Passion"

Author: David I. Caplan (---.fau.edu)
Date: 02-25-04 23:28

There's another aspect of the Gibson film controversy concerning which I've been wondering.

In recent years our society's level of artistic taste has descended to the lowest level in our history. Item: the cross-in-urine depiction; item: the moving picture film that claimed that Jesus was a homosexual! These "artistic" endeavors bashed the Xstians and represented a new pastime of Xstian-baiting on the part of the radical chic, comprising the intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals.

The radical chic also recently has found another form of baiting: Jew-baiting. The Gibson film probably will pose a dilemma for many, if not most, of these Xstain- and Jew-baiters -- many, if not most, Xstain-baiters today being Jew-baiters. The verdict of many, if not most, mainstream clerics on the Gibson film is that it is a fairly accurate rendition, as well as inspiring especially for religious Xstians. If the radical chic is going to approve the film, then it would seem to mean that they are retreating from their former approval of the urine and homosexual "artistry"; If the radical chic is going to condemn the film, then it would seem to mean that they are agreeing with those Jews who condemn the film for its Jew-baiting, in which case the radical chic would appear to be condemning their own Jew-baiting.

I'd appreciate your views on the topic.

David I. Caplan

^ top

Re:

Author: scott (12.47.98.---)
Date: 02-26-04 13:15

Margaret...

I too will be going to see the movie this weekend.

I have no problem with people makng movies about Jesus. Even though i dsagree with the message of the film, (the message foi the new testament), I will still go see the movie.
My main concern is how the Jews are portrayed in this film. I really want to see for myself just what gibson does.
Do you think Gibson is an evil man?
I have always wondered why if there are peole like you who can see that the New teastament does not blame the Jews, then why is there anybody at all who still beleives that the new tesatament says that the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus.

I mean, the gosepls werent writtin unitl some 40 years after Jesus died. Jesus' first follwoers were Jews. When his followers went to spread their message after he died, they would have first taken the message to Jews. Would Jewish followers actually go around telling people to believe in Jesus, but oh, guess what, the Jews killed him? It doesnt even make sense, theologically.

Just out of curiosity, are you rasing your child Jewish or Christian?

<<Evil men often use religion to justify their immoral actions. And if people walk away from this movie with the misconception that the Jews are to be held responsible for the death of Christ, there is nothing that you or I can say to change that already incorrectly preconceived notion. They already sit in their homes & fester their prejudice and hate. The already do internet searchs to reconfirm that it's okay with God to hate and slander. >>

I know its difficult to change preconcieved notions people have abvout things, especially this. Thats why it is so crucial that this movie, or at least a part of this movie, is classified and made known for what it really is.... anti-semitism. If people hear it enough that it is antisemitism, and antisemitsm is bad, and that you dont have to beleive the Jews killed Jesus, maybe they mght strt to believe it. Afterall thwey heard the oppoite for yeras, and many still cling to that.

^ top

WAY TOO VIOLENT

Author: Leah (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: 02-27-04 01:27

2/26

I am an agnostic and have no problems with making movies about Jesus. However, the "Passion" movie is way too graphically violent as are other Mel Gibson films. I am against tv and movie graphic violence regardless of what the subject matter is. I think the movie should be boycotted as well as any graphically violent movie. 911 was bad enough. If they want to create a biography of Jesus, why not use the means of an opera or play which is less graphic? I can't stand the "thought" of churches promoting this material for "youngsters" to view. No movie about torturing one to death is good for anyone to see. Movies should be about love, peace, and happiness.

Leah

^ top

The Passion

Author: Martha (---.oneillborges.com)
Date: 02-27-04 10:10

I've been reading the interesting postings about this movie, and it is a very good exercise, since the discussion here goes to the very core of the fundamental difference between the jewish and the christian religion: Jesus place in history, probably the most influential historical figure of all times, even though we cannot even be sure if he really existed.

I was born and raised a christian, but I do not believe that the bible (including both testaments) is a true historical account. It is equally implausible that God impregnated a woman to bring his son to earth as it is that a man named Moses saw bushes on fire, divided a sea, and went up a mountain where God dictated him 10 comandments, or that God decided to choose among all the people on earth a particular group to be "the chosen people". What you choose or are taught to believe as a child has nothing to do with the Bible or the Torah been a historical account of events, it is a matter of faith.

However, there are jews and christians that do believe the Torah and/or the Bible to be a historical account of facts, and they live their lives accordingly. Mr. Gibson is obviously one of those people who believe the Bible is a historical truth inspired by God. As such, he has taken what he believes to be the truth and made it into a movie. And the fact is that the Bible do suggest that a group of jewsih people of the time were responsible for handing Jesus to the roman authorities that ultimately crucified him, and also there is suggestion in teh Gospels that Pilate was pressured into ordering Jesus' death.

Is this the main message of the Gospels? Certainly not. Are there basis in the Gospels to tell the story differently? Certainly yes. However, Mr. Gibson, as an artist and director, is free to adopt whatever version he believes or prefers to tell his story. Even if you believe that the gospels are just fiction, then Mr. Gibson is just an artist that took a book of fiction and adapted it into a movie. From that perspective, this movie is not different from any other movie based on a book. I don't believe that Mr. Gibson had, at it seems to be the belief of many people, a particular obligation to make this movie an accurate historical account. There are many good documentaries about the life of Jesus, this is a movie about the last hours of Jesus' life.

People seem to forget the controversy surrounding another Jesus movie. "The last temptation of Christ". Religious groups all over the country protested against this movie, which basically was the story on how Jesus fell in love with Mary Magadalene and renounced its mission of dying for humanity's sins. That movie was a direct attack to the core of the christian faith, yet it was made, people saw it, William Defoe was a great Jesus, and that was it, artists and directors portraying Jesus in another light.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe that the end result of Mr. Gibson's movie is unfortunate. He did not choose the most conciliatory or uplifting message about the Gospels. As a christian I have to tell you that the core of my faith is not placing the blame on a group for the death of Jesus and our identity as christians is not based on the fact that we believe in Jesus and the jews do not. To be honest, christians do not think about jews all that often, and probably in all my religious upbringing I did not hear one sermon blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus, or discussing why the Jews do not believe in Jesus to be the Mesiah. Jesus story is based on love for all mankind, forgiveness, bravery and social change. These are the important values about Jesus' life, and the main christian teaching is that believers are called to make a difference in the world as Jesus did in his time. For this reason, it is unfortunate that Mr. Gibson, been such a religious man as he seems to be, decided to show an aspect of Jesus life and history that is not at all the center of the Christian believes. Even the suffering of Jesus in the cross is seen by christians as an act of love, and not something provoked by hate and tainted with horror. The saddest part about Mr. Gisbon's portayal is not really that he blames or does not blame the jews, because from that perspective, this movie is no different from old westerns that portrayed the indians as the bad guys or vietnam war movies that portrayed the vietnemese soldiers as vicious killers, when we know that this is not a particularly accurate historical truth. The saddest part of this movie is that Mr. Gibson missess the fundamental point of the christian teaching about Jesus' mission on earth: Jesus was not the innocent and helpless victim of a vicious death, Jesus' death was his choice, an act of love and forgiveness. This movie just stirs anger and division when Jesus life was about peace and togetherness.

^ top

Re: the Passion of the Christ

Author: Roy Blake (192.197.62.---)
Date: 02-27-04 15:56

I'm a former Christian (Anglican) and current agnostic. I went to see the film on opening day with my 16 year old Jewish son. We wouldn't have had it on the top of our must-see list, but he had a chance to review it for the youth page in our local newspaper, and we were both concerned with whether it was anti-semitic.
Having a Jewish wife and children, I think I am quite sensitive to antisemitism. Having been brought up Christian, I'm also quite familiar with traditional Christian teachings. Aside from the graphic way in which the scourging was presented (excessively so, in my opinion), the film could have been shown to my teenage bible class 40 years ago. It is, pretty much, a rendition of what's in the Gospels. Not what historical scholarship has found out about the times, but just what is in the book. In that respect it reminded me of a much earlier movie, The Ten Commandments.
In my opinion, this movie is no more anti-semitic than The Ten Commandments is anti-Egyptian. Quite simply, it is not about modern Jews at all. The high priest and the pharisees are shown as plotting against Jesus. That's the way they are shown in the Bible, though it may well not be the truth. Pilate is also shown in a rather sympathetic way, as in the Bible. Yes, he was such an evil man that even Caligula couldn't stand him. I know that, so do you, but it's not in the Gospels. To fault the movie for not being modern in its theology and its historical verisimilitude is, in my opinion, a valid criticism, but not grounds for condemning it as antisemitic.

I think the movie was done by an old-fashioned Catholic for other old-fashioned Catholics. Folks, it wasn't intended for you, and it isn't about you. It's quite clear in the movie that the Jewish establishment of the time is against Christ, but it is also very clear that Jesus, his family, his disciples, and the many good people who help him, or try to help him, on his way to the cross, are also Jewish.

I didn't particularly like this movie, but I was relieved to find that, in my opinion anyway, there is nothing in it that is likely to instill hatred of Jews in anyone who is not already antisemitic.

^ top

The Movie is not anti-semitic

Author: Margaret (---.bct.bellsouth.net)
Date: 02-27-04 16:37

I have noticed the overall concensus of those posting in this discussion is that the movie was going to be/ is anti-semitic. Again all preconceived ideas based on opinions of others who had already seen the movie or just by people who heard about the movie and believe anything from the New Testament must be anti-semitic.

Just as I cannot alter the prejudice of those who hate, I can not change your opinion that all non-Jews are anti-semitic. Over an over again in this forum these feeling were expressed.

I truly believed the purpose of this website was to promote interfaith relations.

Being a Christian in an interfaith marriage I have experienced Christian-bashing. I never thought my husband was "close minded" for not reading and embracing the New Testament, neither has my husband ever accused me of being anti-semitic because I do embrace the New Testament.

I truly believe the first step towards healthy Jewish/Christian relations begins with dropping the assumption that all of "them" hate all of "us".

If you want to go see the movie, go...if you do not, don't. But, until you see it with your own 2 eyes, anything you say will only be repeats of others' opinions.

Have a great Weekend.

^ top

Re: lack of understanding

Author: Scott (---.ipt.aol.com)
Date: 02-27-04 22:19

I think there is a lack of understanding out there abouyt why Jews are reacting the way they are to this film.

Historically, passion plays brought ouyt the worst in chrsitians, in many instances in europe, people would view these plays and then go and atteck jewiish villages. There are still plenty of people who beleive the Jews killed Jesus, and use that beleif as an excuse to dislike and even hate Jews. Will they physically act on those feelings, probably not. But you see, what is so upseting is that Gibson had a real chance here to make a difference, and he blew it. Thats the most depressing thing of all. Gibson chooses his beliefs. He is not mature emotionally to acceptthe notion that the Jews didint kill Jesus. He is only one of many who beleive that, but he is the only one of many with the ability to take his version of events to the silver screen, and present it in such a way that it seems real, and that will reinfocre the notion that it is the fault of the Jews Jesus died the way he did.

Margaret, you may embrace the new testament, but you dont embrce the idea Jews killed Jesus.

When that idea, the Jews killed Jesus, is used by the wrong people, terrible things can and have happened. Thats why no matter what, as Jews we must try to make chrisitians understand that Jews didnt kill or cause Jesus to be killed. Look at the terrible things, historically, that people have done in the name of christianity! Chief amongst them, the opersecution of the Jews because of the notion thast the Jews killed Jesus.
Jews arent being persecuted now for that, but we wont kid ourselves into thinkingit cant happen in the future. Thats whay now, we have to act, and have doen so in such a way as to be very critical of this film.
Gibson may have a right to portray his version of events as he wishes, but Jews have a right and responsibility to try and set the record straight, our future depends on it.

^ top

Re:

Author: Kathy (---.vv-mres.charterpipeline.net)
Date: 02-28-04 14:08

I don't believe the overall postings are of the opinion that all Christians are anti-semetic at all. I also think people will come out of this movie with what they go into it. If you are already anti-semetic, you will leave the theatre probably more so. Likewise, if you are Jewish and looking for antisemetism, you will probably find it.

I've been thinking a lot about this, and I don't really think the idea of antisemetism is what is really driving the negativity about this movie. I think people in the media are very uncomfortable with religion in the first place, and I think Jews (including me) are very uncomfortable with a religion that they are not a part of being so much "out there". I think Jews don't like to be perceived as different and now, all off a sudden, there is a movie that everybody is talking about that we are just not part of. At work it is the main discussion. Through the discussions I have learned a few things about Christanity that I always new, but didn't understand the extent of it. One lady was talking about how other movies are violent, but when you are watching it happen to someone you love, it is so much more emotional. To me that is a very strange concept and something I just can't relate too, but it helped me to understand how Christians view this movie. In a discussion about antisemetism, another friend at work said she doesn't blame the Jews at all, but is shows was "he did for me" and how she would not be saved or be able to go to Heavan if it wasn't for his love. Again, I knew Christians believed this, but hearing it put this way is something I just don't relate too. I makes me feel that the Christians are looking at me differently (not in an anti semetic way) but just how could she not believe what we do and look what Jesus did for all of us.

I think when Jews feel uncomfortable it is a lot easier to say antisemetism then to reflect on why they are really feeling the way that they do.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts on the issue.

^ top

Re: the passion

Author: sven (---.cable.mindspring.com)
Date: 02-28-04 19:19

Did anyone watch Jay Leno last nigfht (friday). They had the actor who played Christ on and I swear it looked like he was wearing one of those iron crosses German army officers wore during world war 2.

The real reason this movie has sold so many ticket is because it's chock full of graphic violence, (better violence than a naked breast), the media made a point of selling the movie on those merits and THATs what puts warm bodies in american movie theaters.

^ top

Re: Is it anti-Semitic?

Author: Ellen (---.as29.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net)
Date: 02-29-04 00:08

Margaret,

Scott has done a pretty good job of explaining why Jews have historically been wary of these passion plays. But we're not so paranoid about this film as you may think. Those who predicted no great wave of homicidal violence as am immediate consequence of the film's opening may now feel vindicated. We never seriously anticipated that it would turn decent level-headed Christians into bigots. I did not expect an instant upsurge in pogroms in the U.S., and I was not particularly fearful that my daughter would be vilified and spat upon by her high school classmates. In other countries, such as Argentina, the U.K., France, and Turkey, which have all seen synagogue and school bombings, stabbings, or cemetery desecrations, there may still be cause for concern, but no, we have no guarantees.

Of course people who see the film will bring their own pre-existing notions to it and come away with their own personal reactions. It may intensify the hatred of certain sickos, but some Christians have reported that it deepened their appreciation for God's love. To those who condemn anyone who prejudges the film without seeing it, I can only say that their argument is specious. Even if one does see it, one still cannot fully comprehend what impact it will have on every other viewer .

Here's the deal, though: people who are not the victims of racism or anti-Semitism cannot know it or recognize it as well as those who are. The film's creator has denied that he's anti-Semitic, and perhaps he sincerely believes it. But please consider this; he has admitted that he believes I killed Jesus. He believes that you killed Jesus. He believes that every human being ever born and as yet unborn killed Jesus. He believes that he himself killed Jesus. He believes that all human beings, by virtue of the simple fact that we are human beings, had a part in killing Jesus. He believes these things, and so do others who have seen the film or acted in it. Furthermore, they believe that this notion is perfectly consistent with a belief in God's love, and that it should be a comfort to us all. This is because they believe that Jesus died for our sins, even those of us who never asked that anyone do so. As a consequence, some people feel that everyone who fails or refuses to accept Jesus as Savior, especially every stiff-necked Jew whose ancestors were there in Jerusalem when Jesus died, intensifies the tragedy of Jesus's suffering. I predict that this will be the message in hundreds of pulpits tomorrow morning, perhaps even yours. In some Christian denominations, every human soul must be brought into the grace of their church so that Jesus shall not have died in vain. I suspect that a very real consequence of the film will be a calculated upsurge in this type of thinking. That may not be as objectionable as having one's house burned down and one's family massacred, but some of us still find it objectionable.

^ top

Roy Blake's message

Author: Ellen (---.as13.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net)
Date: 02-29-04 10:42

Did the film really show <<the high priest and the pharisees plotting against Jesus>>? That would be inaccurate right there. because the high priest was one of the Saducees, and very much on the opposite side of the conflict from the Pharisees.

^ top

Re:

Author: scott (12.47.98.---)
Date: 02-29-04 20:12

<<I've been thinking a lot about this, and I don't really think the idea of antisemetism is what is really driving the negativity about this movie. I think people in the media are very uncomfortable with religion in the first place, and I think Jews (including me) are very uncomfortable with a religion that they are not a part of being so much "out there". >>

I'm not so sure i agree with that notion. What is driving the negativity about this film is:

*It is extremely violent and graphic

*The movie puts the blame for Jesus' death on the Jews

I think the fact that the Jews are so uncomfortable about this movie has nothing to do with the fact that we are simply not christians, but everything to do with the fact that we are portrayed in a very negative light.

Jews have worked very hard to make it clear to Christians throughout the world that we are not responmsible for the death of Jesus. This film threatens that notion, suggesting, if not overrtly accusing us, of being responisble for the death of Jesus. If us Jews dont speak out against this, lets face it, no one will.

<<I think Jews don't like to be perceived as different and now, all off a sudden, there is a movie that everybody is talking about that we are just not part of.>>

I would agree that Jews dont like to be precived as different as a whole, despite the fact that in many ways, we are different from christians. But this movie has nothing to do with us being different. Its not a film about diversity.
I would amend what you have said, saying
"Jews are very uncomfortable with a religion that they are not a part of"***which makes them out to be villians, responsible in some way at least, for the suffering and death of Jesus.***

Jews are genraly in this country are very open and accepting of ther religions in the name of diversity, aboiuyt he only time when Jews have issues is when a particular religious groups paints a negative picture of us, whicjh we have every right to be upset about.

^ top

Re: Jewish attitude toward Christianity

Author: Ellen (---.as13.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net)
Date: 03-01-04 00:23

Christians have every right to their religion, and I don't know any Jews who have trouble respecting that right, especially if it makes them (the Christians) better people to believe in it. I would say that Jews are very uncomfortable with Christians who can't respect the right of us Jews to believe in our own religion, but who feel a religious obligation to convert us to Christianity.

^ top

it's only a movie (?)

Author: Eric (132.236.216.---)
Date: 03-14-04 22:31

If Jesus died for Everyone, including you and me, his past actions most definitely have import today.

This bringing of the past into the present reminds me of the story of Passover, where the Hagaddah contains the passage "it is because of what the Lord did for us..." It is made clear that we are supposed to consider ourselves connected as if we had been there.

It is a common theme, then: these signifant moments, events and words, are held in the minds of the religious, as if they happened today.

Hollywood movies involve the incredible efforts of hundreds of highly skilled human beings equipped with the most sophisticated technology in order to tell compelling stories. More than ever, films give us the feeling of being there. When historical films are made, it is as if we are able to live through the events portrayed.

With this in mind, it is understandable that Mel Gibson would spend $25 million dollars to make The Passion of The Christ.

However, he suffers, as most people do, from an "occupational hazard". By now how could he not see and do everything through the lense that brought us Braveheart and The Patriot?

His narrative approach in all three films has been consistently violent, historically inaccurate, but cinematically gripping.

And in this worldview, there has to be a bad guy. In the Passion of The Christ, it is, according to the director, supposed to be Humanity. But the mediums he has combined (medieval passion play aesthetic and 2004 Hollywood historical drama) support what amounts to an ignorant and hateful portrayal of the religious and ethnic group to which I happen to belong, and I highly resent being used this way.

I have never felt so keenly outnumbered.

^ top

To Scott and Margaret

Author: Ben (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: 04-01-04 19:04

I have only very recently begun to take an interest in the bible. As an athiest I am able to read the bible (and watch The Passion) from a relatively objective viewpoint. What I know of the story of Christ (and I don't pretend to know as much as either of you) leads me to the opinion that Scott is missing the point of Margaret's argument, and also the point of the film. With a bible in front of me, I say that the gospels clearly attribute the cause of Jesus' arrest and execution to the Jews.

John 12:37 "Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they [the Jews] would still not believe in him"

18:12 "Then the detatchment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus"

19:4-7 "Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, 'Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him' . . . The Jews insisted, 'We have a law, and according to that law he must die'"

This does not mean that I, or any Christians blame all Jews or indeed any living Jews for the death of Christ, but as the gospel tells it (and I make no judgement on the validity of the gospels as pieces of historical fact) this is what happened, and this is what Mel Gibson shows in his film.

I do not believe that the film was meant in any way to alienate religions or to lay the blame on anyone; it is merely an account which is accurate to certain sources - to others it may not be so accurate. But calling Gibson 'ignorant' and anti-semitic on the basis of this movie seems very tenuous to me.

I guess the main point of this relates back to what Scott says about the incongruity of Jesus' Jewish desciples preaching the word of Jesus when it was people of the Jewish race who condemned him. The way you automatically leap to the conclusion that these events cannot possibly go together suggests an unreasonabe (even blind) perspective.

Can no one see that it is possible to be Jewish, believe and preach the word of Jesus while still being aware that certain Jews were responsible for his death?

^ top

Passion Selling Well in Arab Countries

Author: Jenny Genser (---.ocio.usda.gov)
Date: 04-07-04 15:36

I read in the Washington Post that the Passion of the Christ is very popular in Middle Eastern countries and that the anti-Jew message is a major attraction (I can't really say "anti-Semitic", since Arabs are Semitic). Apparently, many authorities (governmental and religious) are permitting and even encouraging Muslims to see this movie, even though the Gospel version of the crucifixion is contrary to Islamic teaching.

I don't have a problem with American Christians seeing the Passion, but certainly this latest development is troubling.

^ top

Re: What historical facts?

Author: Stewart (---.server.ntli.net)
Date: 04-09-04 04:30

It is interesting that the main attack on The Passion is that it will incite anti-semitism. However it was the Romans who actually did the deed itself. Yet I do not hear of the film promotion anti-Italian feeling. I suspect there is a lot of over reaction going on.

I can't think of any reason that this film will promote anti-semitisim. People who hold prejudicial views will normally have more that one prejudice it's in their nature. Hate can be taught but I cannot see a movie doing it unless it explicitly argues a case and states who you are to be prejudiced about.

The most ridiculous thing I have ever heard levelled against the Jewish people is the charge of deicide. That this was levelled by the Church of Rome is bizarre. Deicide is to kill a God. Yet christianity teaches there is only one, and that Jesus was his son. Although the charge has recently been dropped, that it was ever levelled seems to suggest that for a period the church believed there were two Gods. Furthermore that God can be killed, which is practically pagan.

The one thing that is quite clear in the Bible is that Jesus could have avoided his crucifiction. He knew Judas would betray him. He knew he was creating resentment within the powerful priests and scribes of the time. It was foretold that the "messiah" would have his hands and feet pierced. Therefore he knew exactly what he was doing. "Suicide by Roman" you might say would be an inquest verdict. Only one problem there though, he returned from the dead. So at best any charge would have to assault.

The point I am, in a rambling fashion, trying to make is that no Christian would become anti-semitic if they believed what the Bible says. Prejudice has little to do with religious belief more in the line of character flaw. Most "religious" wars were fought for money and loot.

^ top

Suggestion for all

Author: Shiraz (212.158.251.---)
Date: 04-10-04 07:08

Dear all,

I happened to stumble upon this message board following a Google search for a related article. I must say, for someone who rarely get's involved in opinion bashing or ego led agenda's, I found the majority of the debates quite interesting. Unfortuntely, there were some exceptions. However, on the whole, I find this avenue as encouraging.

Now, the life and death of Jesus, as with many historical religious references is all down to one's upbringing, tradition, culture and inevitably one's belief. Therefore, the important distinction which has been highlighted a number of times here, truth and belief, is paramount. Mel Gibson's simply followed his own beleif, that according to the four gospels. His aim was to make the movie, The Passion of the Christ, as close to that which is written in the gospels.

On this basis, I cannot fault Mel Gibson, he has made a bold attempt to replicate the gospels (his own belief) into a visionary cinema piece. Personally, I think he has done an excellent job using his source material. More importantly, I admire his boldness in taking on a difficult subject matter and bringing it to the big screen. I think such action should be encouraged more and more, particularly at a time when mainstream Hollywood has been reduced to no more than a recycled garbage machine producing uninspiring uneducational politically correct movies.

On an additional note, if the large Jewish commmunity feel their historical references have been mis-portrayed in anyway, then why not produce a movie of your own. Large sections of corporate America, Hollywood and the media is owned by the Jews, I'm sure you could counter any so called "anti-semetic" vibes this way.

I also feel "anti-semitism" has become an increasing buzz word. It is an over used term and it's use can sometimes damage creativity.

Regards, Shiraz.

^ top

Re: MelGibson's film

Author: ray arseneau (---.cpe.net.cable.roger)
Date: 04-10-04 23:02

I find the discussion very interesting. But I believe the initial point to antisemitic aspect of the film is being missed and and the discussion has turned into a discussion of the differences between the Jewish and Christian faith. Some are making statements disclaiming the truth of the others belief system rather than discussing the historical facts.

The basic question being addressed is whether the ruling Sanhedrin at the time had anything to do with handing over to the Roman Governor a prisoner for execution. It is obvious from a historical point that the answer is yes. There is enough evidence to support this. There is evidence to support that the ruling class of the time were involved in the decision to have the prisoner executed. To say that one group or another alone was responsible I think misses the point of the historical documents. The rulers at that point jews and gentiles were involved. TO deny their involvement is ridiculous. Neither should todays decendants of either group look to each other for continual condemnation to do so would mean that one would have to hold guilty every person one would see decendant of a previous dictator/butcher's race.

Mel certainly has taken some latittude to maybe colour both groups somewhat but to say that the movie was antisemetic is really missing the point. I don't believe any of us really understood the attocities of the holocaust but Hollywood gave us something to think about. Now Mel is giving us something to think about, when we think about Roman crucifixtion.

The comments on this list really do show how much Jews and Gentiles alike or shall I say Christians and Jews are ignorant of each others belief system and history and that is why some Jews are offended because they are getting to see a very graphic picture of what is included in the Christian belief structure. (mind you with lattitude of the producer)

Truth is always colored by ones point of view. But ignorance of other belief structures and history leads to an even greater ability to judge others as bizarre. Point: can you describe the different divisions of the Jewish faith, including the different theological differences which would cause some groups to even question the jewishness of the other groups. Now can you do the same for the Christian faith. Now get the information not from one of your own faith but from the other.

Shalom U'vrahah Ray

^ top

Re: Is it anti-Semitic?

Author: Aimee (209.53.157.---)
Date: 04-13-04 02:16

I think everyone is forgetting the whole point of the crucifixion of Christ. Christ was crucified because he allowed himself to be crucified. He says himself in the gospel's (roughly)" I willingly lay down my life, no one can take it from me." If you believe that Jesus was God, then you know he could have had the angels come and save him, or do whatever was necessary. If you don't believe Jesus is God, then you can still concede that Jesus could have run away at Gethsemane. The point is, he knew what was going to happen, he knew it was necessary, and it wouldn't matter if all the Jew's in Jerusalem tried to save him. Jesus was meant to die to save us. Jesus died because he allowed himself to be killed. NO ONE killed him.

In regards to the movie inciting anti-semitism. The movie doesn't do anything. People allow themselves to become anti-semetic. They choose to allow the movie to prove some thoughts that are already their. All the opposition to the movie does is gives hate filled people a direction to go and find anti-semtism where it isn't. That's the thing about words. Everyone interprets them according to their own personal bias and beliefs. The movie is no more anti-semetic, than it is anti-roman, or anti-satanist! I didn't see as many men mourning Jesus as women, Does that mean that it's anti-masculine. No. But if I wanted it to be, I bet I could find a way to make it anti-anything. That's the thing with hate and sin. Satan is the deciever, he twists jsut slightly enough to suit his purpose, and if he wants people to become anti-semetic, to create hate in someone, then he's going to twist it enough to suit his purpose.

Like Mel Gibson Said "Anti-semetism is a Sin. If you are an anti-semetic... you are not a Christian.

Aimee Loranger

^ top

Re: rabbi boteach

Author: renae (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: 04-16-04 14:51

I am so sorry that there are people who profess to be Christians who blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. As a Christian, it has always been my understanding of our beliefs that Jesus came to die this very death as atonement for our sins. I hope it's of some comfort to any Jews reading this that, as Mel Gibson's movie was having early screenings, I was bombarded with forwarded emails from excited Christians who had seen it. Not one, single email contained even the slightest suggestion that the Jews were to be blamed. To the contrary, they claimed the guilt themselves, along with gratitude for a saviour who would go through absolute torture and the most excruciating form of execution ever known to atone for our sins.
I'm sorry this movie has caused the Jewish people the pain of these reopened wounds. I know that your people have suffered much in the name of Christ throughout history, and that the name "Jesus" brings strong, negative emotions to so many of you. So many of us Christians want to tell you that we don't believe the people who persecuted you in the name of Christ were true Christians; that they missed the points Jesus made during His life. It seems to me that this might be the way true Muslims might look at terrorists claiming "jihad" against the unbelievers of their faith.
Finally, I do think good is coming from this movie. Most notably that it has opened dialogue like ours. My experience has been that this dialogue has created more sensitivity and understanding between many Jews and Christians.

< Previous

Next >

Getting Married?

Mel Gibson's The Passion - Page 1

Page 1