The controversy surrounding The Passion of the Christ

Have you even seen the movie? Do you understand that those who liked Jesus were Jews and Romans? That's not being anit-semtic. That's not anit-semtic at all. Christians are not allwoed(sp) to be anit-semtic. It's looked down on.

http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Faiths_and_Practices/Christianity/Denominations_and_Sects

That's a lot of people who are anti-semtic.

 

The_fireman, but Vaderize03 suggests that "God never dismantles a convenant." So I take it you disagree with that.

Anyway, back to the movie. The movie goes farther than the book by taking liberties with a visual medium. Because it's a movie, there are all sorts of visual cues to make the "bad Jews" look more immoral, more stereotypical. In short, less human.

 

Examples? You haven't seen the movie, so I really don't know where you're getting these ideas. I felt more anger towards the Roman soldiers who were scourging Jesus than the pharisees and sadducees, much less the entire Jewish people. Whereas I felt a lot of love for first of all Jesus, but also Simon of Cyrene, Mary and Mary, the apostles ('specially John), etc. These cries of anti-semitism are unfounded; especially when coming from those who have not seen the film.

The_fireman, but Vaderize03 suggests that "God never dismantles a convenant." So I take it you disagree with that.

I don't disagree. Either way, the Covenant WILL have a fulfillment in the Messiah. I just believe the Messiah came 2000 years ago, thus, it was fulfilled then, in my opinion. The Jews are still waiting.

 

Anyway, back to the movie. The movie goes farther than the book by taking liberties with a visual medium. Because it's a movie, there are all sorts of visual cues to make the "bad Jews" look more immoral, more stereotypical. In short, less human.

Hold on a moment. If Gibson was striving for historical accuracy, and remained true to the historical record (which the Bible can be and is considered), then how is it stereotyping? The stereotypes developed based on the historical record, not the other way around. The stereotype of what a "bad Jew" looks like was not used to write the Bible. Instead, it developed because of how people perceived what was written in the Bible.

You're putting the cart before the horse in this case.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Can I ask what theater you actually walked into when you went to see the movie?

Maybe there was blatant anti-Semitism in 50 First Dates or Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights?


I would also love to hear what "history" books you were reading that claim that Christianity was invented by the Romans?

 

"It portrays a few Jews in a bad light, it's ANTI-SEMETIC!"
"If it's anti-semetic then any movies with Nazis is anti-German because it shows bad Germans!"
A few posts later...
"It generalizes all Jews as being bad since some people in the movie are Jewish AND bad!
"Well then WWII movies must portray all Germans as being bad..."

With arguments I like this I can't wait until The Alamo comes out

 

"With arguments I like this I can't wait until The Alamo comes out."

You mean that piece of Anti-Hispanic trash? The one that portrays a certaing roup of Mexicans in a bad light and therefore villifies the whole race? Yeah, can't wait.

 

I am thoroughly enjoying reading about how violent this movie is. Let's take the religion argument away for a moment and tackle this iolence that causes people to be anti-semitic.

Who beat the crap out of Jesus? Well, at first it was the guards of the Sanhedrin. That was not much worse than watching a guy getting his neck broken in a fight during a hockey game. I bet that makes him anti Canadian.

When the scourging occurred, Pilate was portrayed as attempting to save Jesus' life by having him beat so bad that the jews would accept that he was scarred for life, beaten within an inch of death.

Was this much different than any other Roman beating? No. The Romans were brutal and they would beat those condemned to die, which is another small detail that Gibson left out. The 2 convicts that were crucified beside Jesus appeared not to have been beaten. All that does is draw more attention to the brutality of the scourging of Jesus.

Scourging, while brutal, was a reality of the time. A time when feeding people to wild beasts was viewed like baseball or soccer. Were the Jews that brutal? No. Has anyone else been as brutal? Yes. Has it been on the same scale? Yes, although different means to an end.

Anti Semitic? No more than anti Roman.

 

I saw the Patriot and it stirred in me nothing other than Anti-British sentiment.

I saw Braveheart and it stirred in me nothing other than Anti-British sentiment.

Irony being, Mel's a monarchist!

E_S

 

Anti Semitic? No more than anti Roman.

And thank God the Romans aren't around to object, or we'd have to compromise with them, too...

 

MyKe1138, you missed my point.

I have no problem with a recognition that there are good people and bad people. Good Christians and bad Christians, good Jews and bad Jews, good Muslims and bad Muslims, etc.

What bothers me is the way the movie, and Christianity itself, defines "good" and "bad." A bad jew, according to the film, is any Jew who didn't recognize the divinity of Christ.

See the point? That's the inherent anti-Semitism that's built into the religion. I understand that a lot of Christians are in denial about this incontrovertable reality. But there you go. That's why this sick, brutal waste of film stock is such a big hit in America.

 

I am not going to watch anymore of Mel Gibsons movies. His Father said the Hollocost never happened. Mel Gibson is a mean and Sick person for bringing out Anti-semtism.

 

What bothers me is the way the movie, and Christianity itself, defines "good" and "bad." A bad jew, according to the film, is any Jew who didn't recognize the divinity of Christ.

Do you know how big Christianity is? Going by what you say then that would mean a big part of the world is anti-semiti.

the inherent anti-Semitism that's built into the religion.

No it's not you can't be a Christian, or a Catholic, or what ever else and be anti-semiti. They don't look on it very well.

I understand that a lot of Christians are in denial about this incontrovertable reality.

Christians are not anti-semiti.

 

I don't know, ani. This thread has proven that a lot of Christians don't even know how to recognize anti-Semitism even when it hits them in the face. The fact that so many Christians have hailed The Passion of the Christ as a great film is all the evidence you need.

If you're not a "Jew for Jesus," you're an evil Jew. That's the message of the movie.

 

This thread has proven that a lot of Christians don't even know how to recognize anti-Semitism even when it hits them in the face. The fact that so many Christians have hailed The Passion of the Christ as a great film is all the evidence you need.

So because people who are Christians feel it is a very good film makes them anti-semiti. I'm sorry but with that one statment you have lost a lot of credibility. I can say that ever you who see's horror movies kill to watch people being killed and think it's cool. But I won't.

 

What bothers me is the way the movie, and Christianity itself, defines "good" and "bad." A bad jew, according to the film, is any Jew who didn't recognize the divinity of Christ.

But that's not how Christianity defines a "good" jew or a "bad" jew.

The only jews that I have ever really seen portrayed as "bad" in Christian scripture (at least the New Testament) were the leaders who opposed Christ (trying to have him put to death), and the Pharisees who persecuted Christians. It was not "either follow Christ or you're bad", but "fight against Christ and you are bad". There were many people who neither followed Christ nor fought against him.

For example, after Christ had fed the 5000 people, at a later sermon he gave, he basically said that he wasn't going to feed them physically that time, and many left. They are not portrayed as bad, but neither are they portrayed as good.

The problem is that you are trying to make the whole thing polarized when it is in fact a spectrum.

Kimball Kinnison

 

That may be somewhat true of the new testament, but it is not true of the movie. The movie does indeed make those "polarizing' distinctions.

 

Consider the events portrayed, though.

Crucifictions were public spectacles. Often, people didn't know or even care who was being crucified. They were just there for the show.

Additionally, according to the New Testament, in Matthew 27:20 (right before the contentious verse about the blame being on their children), it states:

But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.

As I have not yet seen the movie (I'm going tonight), I can't say whether that part was in there, but it is one of the things I will be looking for. The scriptures do not identify the crowd as being bad, only the chief priests and elders (basically the sanhedrin).

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball's insight serves him well. There is every indication that the Sanhedrin is the one stirring up the crowd.

 

Pucca Kenobi,

A. Your 1st post:

"I have not seen this movie, nor will I ever see it.. I have no desire to see the gospel according to Mel Gibson. BUT a friend of mine (who is Jewish) went and saw it. She was very offended. You can argue back and forth about whether it is anti-sematic, but the simple truth is, she was offended and I trust her opinion."

B. My FULL reply:

"So what if she was, that is her opinion of it, yet 'your focus determines your reality'.

The issue of this thread is centred on the charge that the film goes way beyond offending an individual of a certain religious oulook, but actively preaches hatred against them, all of them.

(Well that's how I understand the term 'anti-semitism'.)

I suspect appealing to individual opinions of individual Jews, of various strains of Judaism, is a waste of time, for it will only lead to a numbers game at which point Disraeli's famous one-liner enters stage left. Facts will not matter for if someone is determined to believe X, you better believe they'll stick to that position no matter what. I'm not sure resolution by discussion is possible here."

C. Your 2nd post:

" 'So what if she was, that is her opinion of it, yet 'your focus determines your reality''.

What a terrible thing to say.. So what? Well guess what, I CARE that she was offended. I care that she was disgusted by the way the Jews were portrayed. No need to make that sort of a comment"

What is your problem?

At no point did I say your friend is not entitled to be offended, that her view is somehow wrong or invalid.

At no point did I say you are wrong to choose not to go and see the film on the basis of your friend's view. As to caring, it is sadly true people care most deeply about those they know, thus as you have a tie of friendship to this person, thus you care. I do not have that, I do not know your friend.

My points in my post was that the charge of anti-semitism consists of and involves far more than simple offence, at least the way I understand the term. Where this charge is concerned, I doubt neither statistical evidence of numbers of people offended nor rational argument either way can settle the matter, because so much is perception which is why I quoted TPM's line of focus and reality.

Your friend perceived the film in the way she did and considered it offensive, fine. You consider that enough to also not see the film, fine. However, rightly or wrongly, I got the implicit idea from your 1st post that this single opinion, which it is, is enough to prove the film anti-semitic and I don't think that is so. Now might I be seeing something that isn't there? I may well be, or I may not. Funny thing perception.

JB

 

Jesus said He didn't come to put an end to the Law, but to fulfill it. It is our belief that everything in the Old Testament, from the prophecies to the Law to the feasts to the stories, point to Jesus.

Just because He came doesn't mean to us that everything in the Old Testament is now moot.

Ah, but what about jewish scholars who do not feel that Jesus was anything resembling our Messiah? There is an entire religion out there that does not believe in Jesus, because He wasn't what the Jewish Messiah was supposed to be.

Go here for an example.

It all depends on your point of view .

Peace,

V-03

 

Yes, I agree.

However, the Messiah was supposed to be many things, and do many things, one of which, is suffer and die for the sins of everyone (Isaiah and Jeremiah mainly speak about this). If that be the case, and yet He's also supposed to reign as King forever, won't He have to come a second time to do so?

And if so, why is Jesus then not considered at LEAST a candidate? To my knowledge He didn't do anything AGAINST what was written about Him. He only left some things unfinished (hence the second coming).

 

Did you read why the site do not believe Jesus was the Messiah?

In the left-hand column there is a section marked "counter-missionary articles".

Try there. It's case is compelling, to say the least.

Peace,

V-03

 

Alright, I'll take a look at it. I suppose my replies would be better suited to the "Why don't the Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah?" thread?