The Passion of the Christ

[Swamp Fox]

I just saw the movie on DVD, and I don't see a shred of evidence that it is anti-semitic. Nowhere does it say that "Jews killed Christ" or anything remotely like it.

That movie showed the corrupt rabbi demanding the death of Jesus, but that is part of the story - in fact, it showed several scenes where the Roman rank and file acted like thugs, but no one can seriously call the movie anti-Italian.

That movie does show mob scenes with Jews demanding His death, but, again, that is part of the story, and the movie does show scenes of Jews who felt sorry for him or even wanted to help him. To provide a similar situation, in the movie, "Sand Pebbles" with Steve McQueen, there were many scenes of Chinese forming irrational mobs, but no one can call the movie anti-Chinese. In the final analysis, the mobs were made of locals, and mobs are never put in good light, whether they are made of Jews in the ancient Middle East or China in the 1930's.

So I just can't see why anyone would complaint. Comments?

[Coot]

A more apt title for the movie might have been "The Passion of Mel Gibson." ;)

[kingdome74]

I think anytime someone makes a movie about religion and more particularly about Christ there is going to be problems. As the majority religion in the US there is bound to be someone who hates it. Frank Rich ran a very public jihad in the New York Times against the movie. The same on the other side happened when The Last Temptation of Christ opened.

I should state I have seen the movie twice and I can not see any anti-semitism but if I was Jewish and sensitive to this issue then I might. As an agnostic who is interested in the history of the Bible I liked it alot.

[Doctor Dan]

As a faux snuff film, I must admit that I was entertained. Sometimes you could almost imagine that it actually happened.

:lol:

- Dan

[archidante]

I just saw the movie on DVD, and I don't see a shred of evidence that it is anti-semitic. Nowhere does it say that "Jews killed Christ" or anything remotely like it.

That movie showed the corrupt rabbi demanding the death of Jesus, but that is part of the story - in fact, it showed several scenes where the Roman rank and file acted like thugs, but no one can seriously call the movie anti-Italian.

That movie does show mob scenes with Jews demanding His death, but, again, that is part of the story, and the movie does show scenes of Jews who felt sorry for him or even wanted to help him. To provide a similar situation, in the movie, "Sand Pebbles" with Steve McQueen, there were many scenes of Chinese forming irrational mobs, but no one can call the movie anti-Chinese. In the final analysis, the mobs were made of locals, and mobs are never put in good light, whether they are made of Jews in the ancient Middle East or China in the 1930's.

So I just can't see why anyone would complaint. Comments? "Any person familiar with Jewish judicial procedure in Biblical times will find it difficult to take the Gospel account literally. According to Jewish law at the time, no one could be arrested at night. It was illegal to hold court proceedings after sundown on the eve or the day of the Sabbath or a festival. The Great Sanhedrin could convene only in the Chamber of Hewn Stones, never in the palace of the high priest or in any other dwelling. Nor could the Sanhedrin initiate arrest. No one could be tried before the Sandherin unless two witnesses had first sworn out charges against him. As there was no prosecuting Attorney, the accusing witnesses had to state the nature of the offense to the court in the presence of the accused, who had the right to call witnesses on his behalf. The court then examined and cross examined the accused, the accusers, and the defense witnesses. The Talmud, in fact, decreed that even as a condemned man who was led to his place of execution, a herald had to preceed him crying out to all: 'So and so, the son of so and so, is going forth to be executed because he has committed such and such an offense, and so and so are his accusing witnesses. Whoever knows anything in his favor, let him come forth and state it'" - MAX DIMONT, "JEWS GOD AND HISTORY"
The Jews never crucified anybody. That was a Roman convention often used against politicall dissidents, which is probobly exactly what happened. Paul, who was of Herodian descent and sort of frowned upon in "better" Jewish society, absconded with "Christianity" which was originally an abscure Jewish offshoot religion, the kind of "Mystery cult" common in Roman times in a plethora of long forgotten cults common to people with a lot of extra time on their hands. Paul needed to focus the Blame for Christs crucifixion from it's original Roman origin to the hyped up and untrue "Jewish" origin as a means of transmitting the religion to a large new power base (Roman non-Jewish slaves) under himself.
Paul may have believed all this or may have had a bone to pick (The Herodians from what I understand were "wrong side of the Track" people in the Jewish culture as they were seen as collaborators with the Roman Occupying forces). It might have been a cool calculated grasp for power.

As an aisde, my great grandfather was from Rome. It is far more likely that one of MY ancestors put Christ on the cross than the ancestors of anybody listening to a Rabbi this week. That's not something I'm proud of, as Christ certainly added dimensions to humanity by his insights and integrity. But it is the truth, and any anti-semitism propogated by Christians on the notion the Jewsih religious authorities at the time "crucified Christ" is a bunch of crap.
Crucifixion was a ROMAN means of execution. But from what I understand about Christianity the message is clear: Christ suffered that crucifixion for each and every human being equally. If one wants to see who put Christ on the cross, according to proper Christian belief, look in the mirror. Look directly in the mirror. That's the one. Understand that and then you understand Christianity, miss it and you miss the whole point.

[MorWired]

....But from what I understand about Christianity the message is clear: Christ suffered that crucifixion for each and every human being equally. If one wants to see who put Christ on the cross, according to proper Christian belief, look in the mirror. Look directly in the mirror. That's the one. Understand that and then you understand Christianity, miss it and you miss the whole point.That's something I've never been able to understand, how can anyone, Jewish, Roman, or otherwise, be blamed for something that scripture tells us was planned and intended? This became clear to me watching Jesus Christ Superstar many years ago -- blaming Judas for fulfilling his role seemed senseless. As for this film, I haven't seen it, as I have no desidre to see anyone or anything graphically tortured.

[archidante]

That's something I've never been able to understand, how can anyone, Jewish, Roman, or otherwise, be blamed for something that scripture tells us was planned and intended? This became clear to me watching Jesus Christ Superstar many years ago -- blaming Judas for fulfilling his role seemed senseless. As for this film, I haven't seen it, as I have no desidre to see anyone or anything graphically tortured.
That's the whole confusing contradiction of Calvanistic predestination in a nutshell. What I've never understood is how an all powerfull diety can stand by the wholesale murder and destruction of millions of people, and then be praised as "merciful". If the cop on the streetcorner did that he'd be jailed as an excessory to a crime. THEN, after all that is allowed to take place the all powerful merciful diety tortures the guilty forever. Wouldn't it have been easier just to stop the crime and lessen the suffering of everyone? Like all of humanities horrors for untold centuries are because Eve bit an apple. A serious sense of proportion is needed here.
But according to Calvanism Judas did have a choice, and it only appears predestined because God can see into the future, which fits neatly with Einstienian time...which is said to exist all at once.

But the issue of blame the Jews for Christ's crucifixion is erroneous
for a number of other important reasons. Christ didn't come out of thin air-he was raised by a people ( the Jewish people) a product of a culture (the Jewsih culture), and his ideas were a reflection of that culture. While the Jews were writing dietary laws on the humane slaughtering of animals, the Europeans were living in mud huts and worshipping trees. The Chinese were using dead workers for mortor in their constructions, the Olmecs were probobly refining the first of a human sacrifice cult that was going to persist until the Spanish arrived,and the Persians were practicing cruelty as an art form.The elements of Christs teachings that have had a profound effect on a viscous Roman empire were things like the notion of individual human worth (God would sacrifice for YOU) as apposed to Roman slavery.
Those elements, the things the whole human race has come to cherish-compassion (look at how I was uaccused of lacking it recently here-it is treasured by people today) patience, moderation, these were things Christ was advocating from his origins in a distinct
culture complex-that of the Jews. To turn around an place the blame for cruelty on the very people who were the advocates of it's opposite is a classic historical doublespeak worthy of Orwell, only a lot older. I'm not advocating any religion here, but they are what they are; sometimes noble, sometimes profound, and if not put into perspective downright easily abused.

[Arc]

Jesus was a Jew raised by Jews in the land of the Jews.

A Jewish special interest political and religious group known as the Pharisees had him executed for political reasons. (Which is why they did much of their dirty work at night.) They used the authorities, the Romans, to do that. What else would you expect in a Jewish state conquered by the Romans?

Bottom line is he was tortured and executed for political reasons. His death served both his purposes and the Pharisees. On a human level only the Pharisees and the mob on site were responsible for his death. No one else was responsible. Certainly not the Jews or any other peoples.

[Piobaireachd]

Jesus was a Jew raised by Jews in the land of the Jews.

A Jewish special interest political and religious group known as the Pharisees had him executed for political reasons. (Which is why they did much of their dirty work at night.) They used the authorities, the Romans, to do that. What else would you expect in a Jewish state conquered by the Romans?

Bottom line is he was tortured and executed for political reasons. His death served both his purposes and the Pharisees. On a human level only the Pharisees and the mob on site were responsible for his death. No one else was responsible. Certainly not the Jews or any other peoples.
Joseph Caiaphas is probably more to blame than anyone else.

[archidante]

Jesus was a Jew raised by Jews in the land of the Jews.

A Jewish special interest political and religious group known as the Pharisees had him executed for political reasons. (Which is why they did much of their dirty work at night.) They used the authorities, the Romans, to do that. What else would you expect in a Jewish state conquered by the Romans?

Bottom line is he was tortured and executed for political reasons. His death served both his purposes and the Pharisees. On a human level only the Pharisees and the mob on site were responsible for his death. No one else was responsible. Certainly not the Jews or any other peoples. But the concern is that Gibsons Passion film ( I haven't seen it for fear of getting swept back into religion) will engender anti-Semitism.
If the Pharisees used the Romans to violate the Laws Max Dimont outlined above...that could be construed by some to create anti-Semtetic feelings. Dimont left me with the impression that it would have been outside the culture of the Pharisees to operate that way. It clearly wouldn't have been outside the realm of the Romans, however, who had a habit strong arming the world.
Yet whoever the specific individuals were, I concur on your point that it wouldn't implicate whole peoples by any stretch. But more importantly I think is the notion Christianity has of our personal accountability to (God & Christ) for our sins. The understanding is, that if only one person in the human race had needed Christs sacrifice, he would have made it for any and each of us, as all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. So what is the proper Christian answer to who crucified Christ? There is only one proper answer, and that it was "I".
Any searching for any others culpable misses the point-to the Christian, the genuine Christian, there is only one person guilty of Christ's death, and it is "I". This is very important (from a Christain theological standpoint) because anyone snooping around to point fingers at others is not genuinely accepting of their own guilt, and therefore more in danger of the hellfire than non-believers.
"Get the log out of your own eye rather than worry about the splinter in your brothers." -JC

[archidante]

Joseph Caiaphas is probably more to blame than anyone else.
They say this is his burial, look toward the middle of the article. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/jesuskeyfigures.html)


and then there's this little tidbit. (http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/Caiaphas.htm)
(NOT my point of view by the way)

How would anyone be recieved today who showed up saying, "I'm God"? Not very well I presume.

As for Giotto's Pilate and my Italian ancestry....blood will tell.

[joseftu]

I'm out of town with limited internet access right now, so I won't comment at length, but I'll recommend that anyone interested in this subject should read James Carroll's Constantine's Sword.

[Doctor Dan]

How would anyone be recieved today who showed up saying, "I'm God"? Not very well I presume.

Well, according to every Jewish mother, their son is God's gift to the Universe. However, after being told this innumerable times, a few of us start believing that it is actually true.

:haha:

- Dan

[Coot]

Well, according to every Jewish mother, their son is God's gift to the Universe. However, after being told this innumerable times, a few of us start believing that it is actually true.

Already got yer cross picked out?

[archidante]

I'm out of town with limited internet access right now, so I won't comment at length, but I'll recommend that anyone interested in this subject should read James Carroll's Constantine's Sword. Just checked it out at Amazon and did the "look into this book" thing reading three or four pages...maybe it was simply that I was born into too modern an era; whatever hatred the church had been teaching previously (obvious we can see it from history) just wasn't there in any of my experience. My most vivid memories are stories of Jesus's miracles from Catholic school and then the Exodus story at Baptist Sundays school. That seemed to go on forever, Sunday after Sunday,
and the Isrealites were heroes in the desert, Moses leading them through this trial and that battle. By the time I was in my early teens my older brother was converting to Judaism and marrying Dianne. He was a fierce advocat of Judaism and Jewish life in general. So as far as Christians exhibiting any hostility to Jews, I never saw it around the churches. But I wasn't even born until 61, and not very cognizant of prejudice until the 70's.

[MorWired]

Well, according to every Jewish mother, their son is God's gift to the Universe. However, after being told this innumerable times, a few of us start believing that it is actually true.Poor baby, between the Jewish-mother god-complex, and the doctor god-complex, you never had a fighting chance, did ya? :whistle: ;)

Actually, over the holiday, Matty (my 5-year-old nephew) stopped me and announced very clearly and very seriously that he is "god's gift" -- now I've heard your story several times before, and thought perhaps your mother was working her magic overtime or had franchised herself or something :), but as I struggled not to laugh and crush his sincere little ego, my brother interjects that "Matthew" means "god's gift." Whew -- one flustered muttering aunt off the hook. :blush: :lol:

I guess legacies of delusional grandeur aren't limited to Jewish mothers, yours or anyone else's. :)

[MorWired]

...whatever hatred the church had been teaching previously (obvious we can see it from history) just wasn't there in any of my experience. My most vivid memories are stories of Jesus's miracles from Catholic school and then the Exodus story at Baptist Sundays school. That seemed to go on forever, Sunday after Sunday, and the Isrealites were heroes in the desert, Moses leading them through this trial and that battle...Depending on which individual was leading the American Baptist Bible studies of my experience, Jesus' death was either the fault of the Jews, or the Jews were tricked/pressured into choosing him for death. Even by-the-book fundamentalists have varying takes on it.

[Coot]

How's about accepting the dichotomy...the eventual paradox that exists in most religions?

In the detemenistic sense, he was destined to die...in the free will camp, he either chose to die (for which there is ample evidendce), or he was killed outright by a vengeful society (for which there is little evidence).

I'm not sure why there's this much discussion of the event, given that we're separated by a couple of thousand years from the purportedly blessed event itself.

[MorWired]

How's about accepting the dichotomy...the eventual paradox that exists in most religions?

In the detemenistic sense, he was destined to die...in the free will camp, he either chose to die (for which there is ample evidendce), or he was killed outright by a vengeful society (for which there is little evidence).

I'm not sure why there's this much discussion of the event, given that we're separated by a couple of thousand years from the purportedly blessed event itself.Well, the problem with fundamentalism is that it's absolute -- there is no room for grey, only black and white.

I don't know how other religions choose to view it, doubtlessly with more willingness to find a reasonable medium. As for the 2k years ago part, you're forgetting that the fundamental religions take the whole thing literally -- it may as well have happened yesterday, that is how clearly they believe they see it. There is no room for compromise or willingness to disagree, because there is only one way to see it, as it was written. That they quibble among themselves about various details is one of those "in the family" things, that we don't much talk about with "outsiders."