I just saw the movie tonight, and I really don't think that it is anti-semetic at all. If anything, it's anti-Roman. Out of specific Jews shown, the majority showed compassion and caring towards Jesus. They believed, and they helped. At first, they may not have wanted to, (like Simon) but they changed and sided with Him. Yes, the crowds on the whole were against him, but you must take into consideration 'mob mentality' As Jesus was carrying the cross, women were following behind him and weeping. Someone at one point cried out, "Someone stop this!" as the Roman guards were beating Him. I think it was an exellent portrayal.
Posts: 25 | Location: k'Sheyna Vale, Valdemar | Registered: 01-26-04
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organisation who claims to be "the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry" has made certain criticisms of the movie, but stops short (I think) of saying the movie is "anti-Semitic".
Various of their documents are found scattered on their home page (in the form of press releases etc), and in their "Passion" FAQ.
I hope this helps.
Davdoodles XXX
ADL Mission: "The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens." - ADL Charter October 1913
quote:We were saddened and pained to find that "The Passion of the Christ" continues its unambiguous portrayal of Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus. There is no question in this film about who is responsible. At every single opportunity, Mr. Gibson's film reinforces the notion that the Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob are the ones ultimately responsible for the Crucifixion.
Also:
quote:The images there show Romans who behave with compassion toward Jesus. The Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, constantly expresses his reticence to harm Jesus. The Jews, on the other hand, are depicted as blood-thirsty. The Jewish High Priest, Caiaphas, is shown as bullying Pilate, and the hundreds and hundreds of amassed Jews demanding Jesus' death.
OK...then how do you explain this:
quote:The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so they could put him to death, but they did not find any. (Mark 14:55)
That sounds blood-thirsty to me. And yes, in the movie, Pilate didn't want to crucify Jesus. Well, in the Bible, Pilate didn't want to crucify Jesus.
quote:As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted "Crucify! Crucify!" But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him." The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die..." (John 19:6)
Again, the Bible clearly shows 'blood-thirsty' Jews and Jewish authorities being the ones responsible for Jesus' death. If the Bible isn't anti-semetic, and the ADL doesn't have a problem with it, then what's wrong with the movie?
[This message was edited on 02-26-04 at 02:23 AM.]
Posts: 25 | Location: k'Sheyna Vale, Valdemar | Registered: 01-26-04
okay, the whole point of mel's movie is to show who jesus christ was and is. and why he died for our sins. jesus was supposed to die. god had jesus crucified for his people(humanity) therefore nobody single-handedly killed jesus. it was god's will. everyones sins are responsible, not a race or religion. the movie is not anti-semitic against jews. and for them to claim this is preposturous. mel doesn't care about that he just wanted to get this true story out for the world to see.
up the stairs to the station where the act becomes the art of growing up. the fever the focus the reasons that i had to beleive you weren't too hard to sell, die young and save yourself!
Posts: 500 | Location: sunny california | Registered: 02-19-04
First, Amen to the previous two posts. I see there is still intelligent life on earth. *big sigh of relief*
I can understand why Jews would be afraid of the feelings this movie will inevitably cause. But that does not make the movie anti-semitic, that just makes the viewers anti-semitic if they are ignorant enough to take that viewpoint.
I overheard someone the other day saying, " 'The Passion' is so anti-semitic! They make it look like the Jews killed Jesus." My jaw just dropped. Hel-LO!!! The Jews DID kill Jesus. What people must realize, as Darkfire has pointed out, is that while the Jews were the ones who carried out the crucifixion, it was God's will to put Christ there. God uses men to accomplish his purpose. Also, it must be realized that Jesus could have saved himself if he wanted to. As the son of God he had the power. But "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him, shall not perish but have eternal life." - John 3:16. And Jesus' will is in accordance with that of the Father. Jesus chose to die on that cross for humanity.
Another thing I don't understand....why people feel the need to blame a whole race for the mistake of a few. It was mainly the doing of the Sanhedrin, and they stirred up the mob to support their position. And suddenly that means that every Jew that has ever lived is the most vile thing on this planet????? C'mon people. Be a little more mature and a little less ignorant. History is history, and the people that lived in the past are in the past, not in the present with us. That's like saying that white people of today are responsible for all the misery and atrocities of slavery for the past several centuries. Really, it is time to MOVE ON.
The truth needs to be told, no matter how gruesome or incriminating it is. And as yellofairy pointed out, it is no one person's doing....we all put Jesus on the cross with our sin. So you can either complain about the anti-semitism that ignorant people will glean from this movie....OR you can be intelligent and realize what this movie is really about...the love of God for humanity and the passion of Christ as he gave his life to save us from our own sin.
I trust people. I just don't trust the devil inside them. - The Italian Job
quote: Another thing I don't understand....why people feel the need to blame a whole race for the mistake of a few. It was mainly the doing of the Sanhedrin, and they stirred up the mob to support their position. And suddenly that means that every Jew that has ever lived is the most vile thing on this planet?????
Exactly! And sometimes I think people forget...Jesus WAS Jewish. So how can this be portraying all Jews as bad, when He Himself was Jewish? And though it was the Jews who actually handed Him over to be crucified, it was not their fault that it happened. The blame is not theirs alone. This was something that was coming for a long, long time. You cannot blame one people for the crucifixion of Christ. The Jews had a role to play in God's plan, and they did it, in order to fulfill the Scriptures. If any other religion had been dominant then, it would have been that religion or people that would have done it. It would have happened, one way or the other. That's just the way God planned it. Jesus would have died for us, no matter who actually did the crucifying.
Posts: 25 | Location: k'Sheyna Vale, Valdemar | Registered: 01-26-04
"The Jews DID kill Jesus. What people must realize, as Darkfire has pointed out, is that while the Jews were the ones who carried out the crucifixion, it was God's will to put Christ there."
Actually, it was the Romans who carried out the crucifixion (Matthew 27:26-31). Perhaps it is statements like this which fuel Jewish concerns about the Passion.
Men prefer to believe what they believe to be true. F. Bacon
Posts: 204 | Location: right here in River City | Registered: 07-28-02
Thanks Acandrl. I'm not sure that statements like "The Jews DID kill jesus" are very helpful or useful in the context of this debate.
First, the debate is about whether the movie is "anti-semitic" or not. This is a question relating essentially to defamation: The damage to one's reputation caused by the publication of false information.
So, it is not about whether "the Jews" killed "Jesus", unless "the Jews" are saying this is false and the movie is saying, falsly, that it is true.
The first thing that occurred to me is that the area was (with the exception of many Roman guards, rulers, etc), largely composed of hundred of thousands of Jewish people.
It is hardly surprising therefore that many of the people involved in (and nearby during) the crucifixion were... Jewish.
Most Jewish people, however, would have had nothing to do with it, nor even known of Jesus, or cared less one way or t'other. Many, undoubtedly, would have been horrified about (and violently opposed to) the events.
It does not follow therefore that "the Jews" were en masse and as a group, responsible for what occurred, any more than say "the Muslims" were responsible for 9/11, or "the Christians" were responsible for ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.
So, "the Jews" did not kill Jesus.
The question is therefore: Does the movie say "the Jews" (as opposed to certain Jewish individuals) killed Jesus, or does the movie defame the Jewish people in some other way?
quote: Actually, it was the Romans who carried out the crucifixion (Matthew 27:26-31). Perhaps it is statements like this which fuel Jewish concerns about the Passion.
It doesn't matter whose hand actually nailed him to the cross. The fact is that it wouldn't have happened if the Sanhedrin had not pushed for it.
Matthew 27:19-25 - "While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: 'Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.' But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabas and to have Jesus executed. 'Which of the two do you want me to release to you?' asked the governor. 'Barabbas' they answered. 'What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?' Pilate asked. They all answered, 'Crucify him!' 'Why? What crime has he committed?' asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, 'CRUCIFY HIM!' When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. 'I am innocent of this man's blood' he said. 'It is your responsibility!' All the people answered, 'Let his blood be on us and on our children!'
Mark and Luke give a similar account, and they both stress the atrocities for which Barabbas had been imprisoned. Not only that, but they show that Pilate was aware of the hatred that the Sanhedrin had for Jesus. This illustrates the fact that the Romans, while ultimately carrying out the death sentence, were only obeying the will of the Jewish council, which Pilate had been forced to comply with in order to avoid a riot.
The Gospel of John includes another important detail:
John 18:31-33 - "Pilate said, 'Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.' 'But we have no right to execute anyone,' the Jews objected. This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled."
This points to the fact that if the Sanhedrin had been able to kill him under their law, they would have done so without compunction. Since they couldn't, they schemed to use the Romans as executioners. But they were really behind it.
And.... John 19:7-11 - "The Jews insisted, 'We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the son of God.' When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, and he went back inside the palace. 'Where do you come from?' he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 'Do you refuse to speak to me?' Pilate said. 'Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?' Jesus answered, 'You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.'
I am not trying to say that the Jews are evil. As you can see from my last post, I hate that people feel the need to discriminate on such ignorant grounds. I do not hate the Jews for the death of Jesus; it was God's will. Therefore we are all guilty because our sin is what ultimately led to his sacrifice. But for history's sake, I will repeat: The Jews DID kill Jesus. It is just a fact. The Romans may have put him on the cross, but the Sanhedrin is the body that handed him over; it was their idea to begin with; and the Sanhedrin is made up of men that are....that's right, Jewish. Pilate gave them plenty of chances to change their minds, but they refused. They stirred up the crowd out of hatred for him because of what he claimed. Actually, I think they knew he was the son of God. You can't be that well-studied in the scriptures and not know when a prophecy of that magnitude is being fulfilled, especially when Jesus spelled it out for them on many occasions. I think they were just afraid. Afraid that 1)Jesus would stir up Roman hatred against the Jews because of his claims of kingship, and 2)Jesus just wasn't what they were expecting. They were looking for an earthly king to liberate them from the Romans and make them a powerful nation again, as they had been in the time of King David. And here comes Jesus, perfect in every way, except that his kingdom "is not of this world." They expected the Lion of Judah, and instead they felt cheated when they got the Lamb.
I trust people. I just don't trust the devil inside them. - The Italian Job
Even further warning - I have not yet seen the movie in question. I will begin by stating that although I have been reading - for months - how Gibson's movie was anti-Semetic, I have held off any opinions until I see for myself and can make an informed decision. Furthermore, my (oft-discomforting) beliefs in Freedom of Speech, artistic license and the best of capitalist traditions lead me to concede, sight-unseen, that Mr. Gibson had the absolute right to create a movie that reflected his ideals and that would garner him as much praise, scorn, television-and-water-cooler discussions, and money as possible. In that respect, he succeeded.
So, why am I stepping in? Because I have read too many times in this thread as to what the Jews thought, felt, did or believed, BASED ON THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE.
To Darkfire, who stated: "If the Bible isn't anti-semetic, and the ADL doesn't have a problem with it, then what's wrong with the movie?": Well, the ADL HAS a problem with the New Testament when it is used to fuel anti-Semitism. Please remember that those of us for whom you and Mr. Gibson pray do not recognize your Bible as a historical or religious document. In fact, it has no bearing AT ALL on our religion.
I'm glad that you've all agreed and acknowledged that Jesus was born, raised and died a Jew. At no point during his lifetime did he ever suggest otherwise - it was my understanding that the new religion of Christianity was created only after his death. Furthermore, his disciples were also Jewish. The Jews were the only monotheistic religion at that time - the occupying Romans - like the Turks, Greeks, Persians before them and the non-Jewish residents of the area were still praying to various and sundry pantheons.
Darkfire again: "If any other religion had been dominant then, it would have been that religion or people that would have done it. It would have happened, one way or the other. That's just the way God planned it. Jesus would have died for us, no matter who actually did the crucifying." Thanks. Of course, it only took the Roman Catholic Church a few millennia to reach that conclusion - somewhere around 1965? Of course, that didn't stop good Christians throughout the past century from burning my family's home in Russia... nor from trying to beat my father up... nor from my "friend" telling me in second grade that I was going to Hell - all because we killed Jesus. But that was all your god's will, too - and the reason Jesus died for us (me too??) after preaching love and compassion was to engender hatred and murder?
But it's DemonInside's last post that really got me: you said: "Actually, I think they knew he was the son of God. You can't be that well-studied in the scriptures and not know when a prophecy of that magnitude is being fulfilled, especially when Jesus spelled it out for them on many occasions. I think they were just afraid. Afraid that 1)Jesus would stir up Roman hatred against the Jews because of his claims of kingship, and 2)Jesus just wasn't what they were expecting. They were looking for an earthly king to liberate them from the Romans and make them a powerful nation again, as they had been in the time of King David. And here comes Jesus, perfect in every way, except that his kingdom "is not of this world." They expected the Lion of Judah, and instead they felt cheated when they got the Lamb." Ah, finally, the answer to all my questions regarding my religion. Let's make a deal - I won't presume to know what you - or Mark, Mary, Peter Paul and Joseph - think or thought based on MY version of the Bible... and you stop claiming to know what I - or the Sanhedrin, or the Jews of Israel - think or thought based on YOUR version.
What I can tell you is that Jews would never have been afraid that Jesus was the son of G-d, because in our belief system G-d is not so humanized to HAVE a son. It would never even have been a consideration. Let me tell YOU that a religious Jew calling Hashem "Father" is not a declaration of parenthood! Furthermore, those who were and are "well-studied" in the scriptures (yours or mine) know that based on JUDAIC text, the harbingers of the Messiah DID NOT occur. Since throughout our early history (the "Old Testament, if you will), Jews had often had a strong leader and/or King lead them and liberate them, there would be no fear of Jesus had he truly been the "one" - the Jews did not fear that: "Jesus would stir up Roman hatred against the Jews because of his claims of kingship" - if he was to be the King, they would have rallied behind him, as they did David, Samuel, Solomon.
In conclusion - I do not yet know if The Passion of the Christ is anti-semitic or not, because I have not yet seen it. Furthermore, the only power this movie has is based on the people who watch it. I heard on commentator discuss the film, and ask if - more importantly - those viewers moved by Mr. Gibson's film and his (and "His") message wouldn't be better off helping the homeless and offering more charity and working more hours in soup kitchens and being kinder to each other -- instead of going out and recreating the Pogroms and the Crusades.
For the members here who have so eloquently argued that they and Mr. Gibson are not anti-Semetic, and if only those Jews and Jew-lovers would accept the fact that they DID kill Jesus (as part of His grand plan) we'd all be better off ... I most humbly say, "thanks ever so much" and please keep the traditional Lenten beatings to a minimum.
----- The one who is most definitely a leather-clad 25 year old dominatrix dashing to the computer to type posts on this site in between whipping young lads: Rhon
"Ah, finally, the answer to all my questions regarding my religion. Let's make a deal - I won't presume to know what you - or Mark, Mary, Peter Paul and Joseph - think or thought based on MY version of the Bible... and you stop claiming to know what I - or the Sanhedrin, or the Jews of Israel - think or thought based on YOUR version."
It's a good deal, let's take it. Thanks, rhon.
Men prefer to believe what they believe to be true. F. Bacon
Posts: 204 | Location: right here in River City | Registered: 07-28-02
quote: But it's DemonInside's last post that really got me: you said: "Actually, I think they knew he was the son of God. You can't be that well-studied in the scriptures and not know when a prophecy of that magnitude is being fulfilled, especially when Jesus spelled it out for them on many occasions. I think they were just afraid. Afraid that 1)Jesus would stir up Roman hatred against the Jews because of his claims of kingship, and 2)Jesus just wasn't what they were expecting. They were looking for an earthly king to liberate them from the Romans and make them a powerful nation again, as they had been in the time of King David. And here comes Jesus, perfect in every way, except that his kingdom "is not of this world." They expected the Lion of Judah, and instead they felt cheated when they got the Lamb." Ah, finally, the answer to all my questions regarding my religion. Let's make a deal - I won't presume to know what you - or Mark, Mary, Peter Paul and Joseph - think or thought based on MY version of the Bible... and you stop claiming to know what I - or the Sanhedrin, or the Jews of Israel - think or thought based on YOUR version.
What I can tell you is that Jews would never have been afraid that Jesus was the son of G-d, because in our belief system G-d is not so humanized to HAVE a son. It would never even have been a consideration. Let me tell YOU that a religious Jew calling Hashem "Father" is not a declaration of parenthood! Furthermore, those who were and are "well-studied" in the scriptures (yours or mine) know that based on JUDAIC text, the harbingers of the Messiah DID NOT occur. Since throughout our early history (the "Old Testament, if you will), Jews had often had a strong leader and/or King lead them and liberate them, there would be no fear of Jesus had he truly been the "one" - the Jews did not fear that: "Jesus would stir up Roman hatred against the Jews because of his claims of kingship" - if he was to be the King, they would have rallied behind him, as they did David, Samuel, Solomon.
Okay, Okay, listen....I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I really wasn't trying to support anything with my thoughts about what the Jews knew or didn't know, and I myself did not feel I was presuming. I was just spectulating...hense the phrase "I think." I was not "proclaiming" anything,...I just thought I would venture a theory, which others are free to oppose, as you have done. Forgive me if I angered you. That was not my intention. But just for clarification, there will be no deal. I do not mind at all if you would like to speculate on Mark, Mary, Peter, Paul, and Joseph. Feel free, as long as I will then be free to offer opposition from a Chrsitan viewpoint, as you have so eloquently done from a Jewish one.
I am interested in discussing three things in your second paragraph. First, you speak of the Christian God as if we believe Jesus was all human, like an equal or something. We do not. We know God is supreme, and we worship him as such....the Holy One, King of Kings, divine, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. We believe Jesus was the "Son" of God in that he is part of the trinity. He became both man and God at the same time. God did not actually have him. But he was incarnated in a supernatural birth, and given a human body to carry out his purpose. And when did I ever mention that anyone calling any type of god "father" was a declaration of parenthood??? Jesus called God "Father" simply as a distinction among the trinity. The Christian God is three in one, with separate functions yet one will and one purpose. God the "Father", creator and sustainer of the world. Jesus the "Son", savior of the world, and the Holy Spirit, who works in the heart of men. We often speak of them as separate, but they are all one godhead.
Secondly you speak of non-existing harbingers. The book of Isaiah...is it or is it not part of the Jewish religion? Isaiah 7:13-14....Then Isaiah said, Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel. Isaiah 9:6-7....For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor , Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this. Or perhaps Malachi?...Malachi 12:10-14....And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great, like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megido. The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, th eclan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, and all the rest of the clans and their wives.
And finally, perhaps the most compelling. I'm tired of typing, so here's a link:
Unfortunately they do not have a copy of the NIV, but there are several other translations available on the site.
Additionally I would like to point out that Joseph, Jesus' earthly father was of the direct line of David, as God promised David that his descendant would reign supreme forever. Mary too was of the house of David. How could this be anything other than a deity such as Christ, who would have to be physically born in order to become a descendant in the first place, but would also have to be immortal (aka God) and able to die and be resurrected in order to rule forever.
Oh I almost forgot...the very first "harbinger" of Christ in the entire Bible: Genesis 3:15, right after the Fall of Man where we screwed it all up. God is talking to the serpent (Satan) "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." - Right here God has implemented the plan for salvation. Sin has entered the world, and someone is going to have to pay. That someone will be Jesus. The history of the world is a fight between good and evil, in which Satan struck the heel of Jesus (through his death on the cross, because Satan facilitated the entrance of sin in the first place), and Jesus crushed his head by rising from the grave. Jesus has won, he has triumphed over sin and death, and with himself he has brought us all back from the grave.
In all sincerity, I would like to know who else these verses could possibly pertain to, especially since they were written by PROPHETS hundreds of years before Christ, and also years apart from each other.
quote: Since throughout our early history (the "Old Testament, if you will), Jews had often had a strong leader and/or King lead them and liberate them, there would be no fear of Jesus had he truly been the "one" - the Jews did not fear that: "Jesus would stir up Roman hatred against the Jews because of his claims of kingship" - if he was to be the King, they would have rallied behind him, as they did David, Samuel, Solomon.
Not to be at all sarcastic or disrespectful....but have you not just proved my earlier "presumptuous" statement? That the Jews are indeed looking for an earthly "messiah"? You speak of Solomon, David, and Samuel. They were human leaders. You speak of liberation as though it pertains to Rome/earthly governments and could not possibly pertain to something otherworldly. You say that if Jesus was really the "ONE" or the "King" that they would have supported him fully. But because he did not come with a sword against Rome, he could not possibly be the king they were looking for, right? What other reason would they have for not following him? Unless you mean to say that the "Messiah" will not claim to be God's son.....if so, how will he set up an eternal kingdom for the Jews? How will he be different from any other earthly king, like David or Solomon? Look again at what I said before....
quote: 2)Jesus just wasn't what they were expecting. They were looking for an earthly king to liberate them from the Romans and make them a powerful nation again, as they had been in the time of King David. And here comes Jesus, perfect in every way, except that his kingdom "is not of this world." They expected the Lion of Judah, and instead they felt cheated when they got the Lamb."
How does your statement disagree with what I have said? In fact, it looks almost identical from my position. But that's just me.....Tell me, how do you see it as different?
Please tell me something, because I'm not entirely sure when it comes to contemporary Jewish culture, but are the Jews still looking for a King to physically liberate them today?
I trust people. I just don't trust the devil inside them. - The Italian Job
quote: all because we killed Jesus. But that was all your god's will, too - and the reason Jesus died for us (me too??) after preaching love and compassion was to engender hatred and murder?
Two things....it almost sounds like you're doing to Darkfire exactly what many people unfortunately do to the Jews. It sounds like you're blaming her for atrocities committed by Christians of centuries past, and even blaming her God for Jewish suffering. It is not her fault that Christians in the past have made ignorant mistakes. No, Jesus would not be pleased about the hatred and murder that has occured either. All Christians aren't the same you know. I'm sorry for wrongs that you have suffered, truly I am. But that's no reason to rip into Darkfire...afterall, her post was meant to chastise those who would hate Jews.
And what's this about our God's will??? Personally, yes, I beleive EVERYTHING is God's will...the death of Jesus, the suffering of the Jews, my parents' divorce, my uncle's death, the burning of your home, the H-bomb in Japan, the spread of AIDS and Cancer.....everything. You are not the only one who suffers. People everywhere are hurting for one reason or another. And Christians suffer too....all over Africa and the Middle East and elsewhere. Jews aren't the only victims of religious prejudices. And while you're throwing blame at the Christian God, may I ask where yours was?
And yes, Jesus did die for YOU and loves you...and for everyone, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. and so on.
I trust people. I just don't trust the devil inside them. - The Italian Job
First - an apology for my off-topic post last night - this thread is regarding The Passion of the Christ, not Christian thought or DemonInside's understanding/concept of Judaism and the Judaic Messiah.
DI - we might be better served continuing this in a private discussion or another (!!) thread on Judaic vs. Christian messianic beliefs. I will research the questions you posed, and provide Judaic translations/editions of Isiah, etc in another thread/post. Furthermore I will find for you the other "announcements" of the Messiah, etc.
I again apologize to all for hijacking this thread on the film. I most certainly should have known better.
----- The one who is most definitely a leather-clad 25 year old dominatrix dashing to the computer to type posts on this site in between whipping young lads: Rhon
It's hard to tell the story of the Passion, as portrayed in the New Testament, without portraying some Jews negatively. So, if we accept that it's legitimate to try to tell the story of the Passion as portrayed in the Gospels, it seems the relevant question is: Does the movie portray specific Jews negatively, or the Jewish people generally?
The answer is complicated. Clearly, most of the Jewish leaders at the time are not looked upon favorably in this film. As has been pointed out, although it was the Romans who actually crucified Jesus, without the exhortations of the Jewish leaders this would not have been done (again, according to the Gospels and this film). Also, the jeering, often bloodthirsty crowds, with the exception of the occasional Roman soldier (who I think were the most defamed persons in this film), were constituted of Jews.
On the other hand: a) Jesus and all his followers were Jews, b) A number of Jews fought against the unfair treatment of Jesus and mourned his death.
My conclusion is this: This movie does portray a number of specific Jewish persons negatively, but not beyond what is merited by a literal reading of the Passion in the Gospels. Indeed, the omission of certain key events (Matthew 27:25 - "All the people (Jews) answered, 'Let his blood be on us and on our children!'") shows, I think, that Mr. Gibson was at least somewhat sensitive to fears of anti-Semitism and willing to sacrifice certain Biblical accuracies to allay them.
A commentator I watched on CNN said something to this effect: "Any film which portrays the Jews as unduly violent towards Jesus is inherently anti-Semitic." I think he takes it too far, because, if you believe that Jesus did nothing worthy of punishment, then any violence by Jews towards Jesus is undue. But, perhaps what he meant was the Jewish people rather than specific Jews, in which case he may have a point. In any case, I disagree with his conclusion that this film is anti-Semitic.
quote: Secondly you speak of non-existing harbingers. The book of Isaiah...is it or is it not part of the Jewish religion? Isaiah 7:13-14....Then Isaiah said, Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel. Isaiah 9:6-7....For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor , Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this. Or perhaps Malachi?...Malachi 12:10-14....And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great, like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megido. The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, th eclan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, and all the rest of the clans and their wives.
And finally, perhaps the most compelling. I'm tired of typing, so here's a link:
In all sincerity, I would like to know who else these verses could possibly pertain to, especially since they were written by PROPHETS hundreds of years before Christ, and also years apart from each other.
A second joins the fray...
For the record, yes, Isaiah is a part of accepted Jewish scripture, more specifically what is known as Naviam. Sadly, your liberal use of biased translations is a faulty tactic. Just as you use translations done by Cristian scholars, so can I myself, being fluent in hebrew (and latin, mind you) translate the same lines in drastically different fashions. Furthermore, those same lines, interpreted either way can be interpreted differently.
We are presented with:
הִנֵּה יַשְׂכִּיל, עַבְדִּי; יָרוּם וְנִשָּׂא וְגָבַהּ, מְאֹד. יד כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁמְמוּ עָלֶיךָ רַבִּים, כֵּן-מִשְׁחַת מֵאִישׁ מַרְאֵהוּ; וְתֹאֲרוֹ, מִבְּנֵי אָדָם. טו כֵּן יַזֶּה גּוֹיִם רַבִּים, עָלָיו יִקְפְּצוּ מְלָכִים פִּיהֶם: כִּי אֲשֶׁר לֹא-סֻפַּר לָהֶם, רָאוּ, וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא-שָׁמְעוּ, הִתְבּוֹנָנוּ. {ס} (for those of you with hebrew text enabled)
And intepret (quoting from above linked site): "Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. 14. As many were astonished at him -- his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men -- 15. so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand." You jump to assume the reference to Christ.
While many prominent Jewish scholars will argue (and I quote once again from "The Prophets" by Heschel p.149): "Perhaps no other problem in the Hebrew bible has occupied the minds of scholars more than the identification and interpretation of the servant...In the main, four theories have been proposed. The servant is (1) an anonymous contemporary of Second Isaiah; (2)Second Isaiah himself ; (3) Israel; (4)a purely ideal or imaginary figure."
quote: Not to be at all sarcastic or disrespectful....but have you not just proved my earlier "presumptuous" statement? That the Jews are indeed looking for an earthly "messiah"? You speak of Solomon, David, and Samuel. They were human leaders. You speak of liberation as though it pertains to Rome/earthly governments and could not possibly pertain to something otherworldly. You say that if Jesus was really the "ONE" or the "King" that they would have supported him fully. But because he did not come with a sword against Rome, he could not possibly be the king they were looking for, right? What other reason would they have for not following him? Unless you mean to say that the "Messiah" will not claim to be God's son.....if so, how will he set up an eternal kingdom for the Jews? How will he be different from any other earthly king, like David or Solomon? Look again at what I said before....
Christ, though descended from David is clearly not the human/political leaders that the Jews could have been looking for. As you said before "They expected the Lion of Judah, and instead they felt cheated when they got the Lamb." The only other possibility is a Jewish notion of the Messiah, which though Christ might fit this description, does not bring about the telltale consequences of a Jewish messiah, namely, the rebuilding of the temple, the resurrection of moses, the end of the world etc.
There are many forms of prejudice portrayed in films today. There are films which have sexist elements or even themes, some films are racist to many different ethnicities and races. There are many forms of prejudice in society and in film, anti-semetism being just one. In portraying the story of Jesus, as is written in the Christian scriptures, there will be Jews being portrayed in a 'bad-light'.
Prejudice is a reality not merely restricted to Jewish people. If the movie is anti-semetic, I shall find it deplorable. If it portrays Mel Gibson's beliefs in the Christian scriptures, I shall not.
Why is nobody worried about the racism involved in films that portray non-American countries as the 'bad guys'? Why is there so little uproar about the prejudice in society- in reality?
First, the caveats: I haven't yet seen the movie. I doubt that I will anytime soon. My biases are well known : I'm agnostic, and loathe in the extreme organised religion, especially Christianity. Less importantly, I like Mel Gibson's work on previous films.
With that out of the way, my disjointed thoughts on the matter.
American Jews are understandably upset and apprehensive about this movie's effect. However, this reaction also plays into Gibson's hands: he wants this reaction, he wants division; his embrace of a sort of fundamentalist Catholicism was bound to elicit sectarian sentiments in him, and since he's a moviemaker with lots of money, the extremism in the result was bound to be explosive.
Gibson's sect is ultraconservative. They regard as non-binding the Vatican II proclamations which finally deigned to admit that not all Jews inherit a responsibility as "Christ-killers". Rhon rightly points out that mainstream Catholicism didn't remove itself from such Bronze Age idiocies until the 1960s, but then, of course she said it more diplomatically (even though she's angered). But the larger point is that Gibson has resurrected a hatred that is ancient and powerful; it was not buried so much as veiled by Vatican II and Western Secularisation.
Though Gibson is nominally Catholic, the movie is specifically targeted at and meant to appeal to fundamentalist christians of all denominations, from Opus Dei Catholics to Pentecostals to the dreadful "Jews For Jesus" wingnuts. All are succeptible and all have been or will be stirred.
Apparently the most sadistic villains in the movie are Roman Legionnaires. Doesn't this make Gibson an anti-Latinist/Italian? Why not? Is the worry of Jews then purely historical? Are Jews paranoid then, even though history makes such an attitude sympathetic?
Don't the Jews who worry over this movie already know that a vast number of Christians do indeed hate them on tribal and sectarian grounds? That this hate would be there "Passion" or not? True, it stirs the hate, but isn't the real issue raised and the real battle to fight the moronic literalist Christian interpretation of the Bible which makes Jew-baiting and Jew-hatred inevitable? Maybe it's even healthy to be reminded just what comes out of that book; for too long (about 40 years now), and largely for political reasons involving Israel, there has been a fake cushiness between ultra-Jewish and ultra-Christian blocs. The effects of this movie show just how crass, for at least one side, this relationship has been.
Rhon, as a Jew, isn't it good (if uncomforatble and ugly -- I'm not trying to put a smiley face on this in any way) in a practical sense to know or be reminded that Fundamentalist Christians have a sectarian hatred of your very identity and that, as such, it reaffirms what is needed in a secular, open, democratic society is a cultural bulwark against the CAUSES and the EFFECTS of fundamentalism of all stripes?
I read somewhere that the violence of the crucifixion is filmed so pornographically that if Jesus Christ was not the victim, the film would have earned an NC-17 rating. Aside the irony that all the actors are white, another historical misconception it apprently pedals is that Jesus's crucifixion was somehow especially gruesome, when there is absolutely no reason to think it was unlike any other performed by the Romans -- His crime may have been unusual (but NOT unique), but his punishment was quotidian for the time and place.
MY own beliefs in regard to the movie, as if anyone cares, are thus : the Romans were in charge and they are guilty of killing Jesus Christ. However, Judea/Palestine was governed by a Roman puppet, King Herod, who was a Jew. Under Herod there was a native (Jewish) elite, temporarily in cahoots with the Roman authority, in both of whose interests was a colonial status quo - rabble-rousers like Jesus Christ were as much a threat to the Pharisees and, by extention, Herod, as they were a threat to the Imperial Roman Occupiers. Hence Jesus, and others who roused the poor & conquered natives with claims of being the Messiah, were quickly dispatched. As such, there was an element of native or Jewish complicity in Christ's execution. But who gives a flying f**k (EDITED - Dav)? Or rather, who SHOULD give one? For just as actions of the main guilty party (Romans) should not soil the good name of modern Italians, the actions of a small number of Jews, who were by far the less-guilty party, should not bear at all on the good name of other Jews. This is anti-bigotry 101, but it's no surprise it's being flunked by True Believers.
Apparently many in the secular world have affected surprise that Gibson did not put this story in an historical context, as if they really expected Gibson, the True Believer, to include in his writing calculus the fact that the Gospels are a disjointed collection of anachronisms, contradictions, and propaganda. Hah! Such "context" instills the seeds of doubt, something truly anathematic to people like Gibson. To him there is no "q" source, there was no "author's prerogative", there was no embellishment, and everything written should be taken with the credulity with which one considers eyewitness testimony. But no, to Gibson and the target audience, every word, mess that it is, is literally true. And anyway, if he did offer an historically valid interpretation, he would have been assaulted quite as much as Scorsese when he released "The Last Temptation of Christ". Fat chance.
Anyway, apologies to Jews, but I'm almost glad Gibson made this movie. As pure art, it's harmless. As artistic expression in a "free" society, it in no way should be censored or banned. That it elicits an ugly but oh so predictible reponse from whom it's targeted can be thought of as a service to the greater good, albeit in a negative way, for it reminds those in society who care to think that the infection of Faith makes the disease of sectarianism: it reminds us that those whose minds are still in the Bronze Age can make life hellish in a modern democratic society. Only Faith can inspire people to stupidly and pettily care which tribe or whose religion had a hand in executing some man over 2,000 years ago.
