The controversy surrounding The Passion of the Christ

YadaYada. I don't think I understand the point that you're trying to make (that people shouldn't swallow everything a preacher says? i think we already know that. we're not children) and I don't see how any of it has to do with the topic of the thread.

 

Master_Fwiffo, I'll be happy to take your word for it that "Jesus's whole point was that the Pharasees had corrupted the Jewish religious system."

That really is the whole point of the New Testament:

The Jews got their own religion wrong.
The Jews did not "get" what God was all about.
Only Jesus "gets" what God is all about.
The Jews rejected this message when they conspired to kill their own Messiah.

But I think the point of many of the Christians who are posting in this thread is that, even though the entire history of Christianity is shot-through with the worst kind of anti-Semitism, Christians have now rejected their own anti-Semitic history and, within the last 50 years, finally embraced the "true meaning" of the gospels which rejects any and all historical anti-Semitic tendencies of the religion.

But someone should have informed Mr. Gibson and his scriptwriters of these recent developments in Christianity. I found this lovely prayer on the Internet. I think it would be incredibly appropriate if Mel Gibson would add it to his DVD release of The Passion


In deep shame and contrition
we come before the almighty and merciful God
to confess the crimes and injustices perpetrated against the Jewish people
down through the centuries,
for which the Christian Church bears heavy responsibility.

We confess that we and our Christian forefathers
often showed prejudice and antagonism
towards our elder brother Israel,
instead of loving God's chosen people.

Throughout the centuries
the Jewish people have been defamed by Christians as murderers of God; and to this day the teaching persists that God has finished with His covenant people Israel, despite the clear evidence of Scripture to the contrary.

God's people have been accused of well-poisoning and ritual murder, as well as being humiliated, deprived of their rights, held in contempt and persecuted.
The horrific murder of six million Jews in the Holocaust ? the climax of a long history of flagrant injustice ? hangs over us like a dark cloud to this day.

We therefore repent and plead with Almighty God
that He might have mercy upon us and forgive us
for what we and our forefathers have done
to His chosen people.

We pledge ourselves to work tirelessly against antisemitism in all its forms and to make every effort to ensure that respect and consideration will be shown on the part of the Church of Jesus Christ towards the Jewish people in the light of God's everlasting covenant with them.

We seek God's blessing upon His covenant people
in Israel and worldwide, above all in the countries from which we come. Amen.

 

Wow. I really don't think that makes any sense. Gibson set out to make a movie about the biblical account of the death of Jesus (and even if you think that he had some other agenda, you can't support that belief with any real evidence, sinse we've been asking you for it for quite a few pages worth of posts and you never provided), and I think he made one that is very consistent with the Bible that Christians believe in. So if Gibson's film is anitsemetic, so is all of Christianity. Is that what you believe?

That really is the whole point of the New Testament:

The Jews got their own religion wrong.
The Jews did not "get" what God was all about.
Only Jesus "gets" what God is all about.
The Jews rejected this message when they conspired to kill their own Messiah.

Do Christians think Jews got their own religion wrong? Of course. So what? We're saying they are mistaken. We also believe that we were all equally mistaken when we didn't know Christ. It's not anti-semetic to say that Jews are wrong. I may be mistaken though. I may have missed the part in the bible where God said Jews were perfect. Musta been somewhere between the idol worship at Sinai and the 40 years in the dessert for having little faith.

Only Jesus "gets" what God is all about? Yes, that IS what the New Testament is all about. That's what we believe. Every Religion trusts their own deity above anyone else.

The Jews conspired to kill Jesus? No, the Pharasees did. The point is that people tend to become hard-hearted and cruel when in leadership possisions, and the Jews are no exception. Their leaders can become as wicked as any other religion's leaders. Or maybe I might have just missed when God said Jewish Leaders are infallible. Gee, but if it worked like that, why'd he bother giving them all those rules in the first few books of the bible? Who needs rules if you can't possibly do something wrong?

Sorry for all the dry sarcasm, but this issue is starting to get really dumb.

 

"Gibson set out to make a movie about the biblical account of the death of Jesus...and I think he made one that is very consistent with the Bible that Christians believe in."

Gibson didn't really succeed though did he? I mean the action "set piece" of the movie is really the flaying of Jesus, a beating so horrificaly graphic and extended that Christ dying on the cross is actually anti-climactic by comparison. I came away from the flaying scene thinking that Jesus would certainly die of those wounds within 24 hours. In other words, the narrative presentation makes the crucifiction seem more or less irrelevant. A mercy killing.

Now, even though I've only read the King James New Testament about 7 or 8 times, I don't think that's the way the scriptures intended to depict the crucifiction - as frankly a bit of a relief after the "scourging."

To me the flaying scene was an artistic, narrative, and theological debacle - a near heretical error as well as pure porn violence.

 

The movie is holy, and profane, and anti-Semitic at the same time. One side of the arguments here will not recognize the deep spiritual impact that the movie has on Christians, the other side will not recognize the justified sensitivity of Jews to being defamed.

Although the violence of the movie is overwhelmingly grim, it might just be artisticly acceptable, because the impact of the pain and suffering of Christ is enormous. However, all Jews of all generations have been unjustly vilified, persecuted and murdered for nearly two thousand years. That gives them the right to be sensitive.

Both these points deserve recognition without debate.

To argue the merits religions is pointless. All Western religions claim absolute and sole posession of Truth. That includes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is a crucial issue (see the trial of Galileo) on which no compromise is possible. And all three are biased against the 'competition'.

 

I think the general consensus is that Jesus had to have been pretty beat up to have died so quickly on the cross, so I don't think the violence of the flaying was so inaccurate. Wheither or not it was over-emphasized is not an argument about it's Biblical accuaracy, but a debate on Gibson's ability as a film-maker. I don't think that Gibson made any changes or emphasized anything in the story to justify calling it anti-semetic and still say that the Bible isn't.

Both these points deserve recognition without debate.

In your opinion. I personally think that there is nothing in the movie The Passion that merits the kind of lable of intolerance that Jabba is trying to place on it. I recognize the suffering that Jews experienced in the past. I also recognize that those past horros were not the fault of Christianity, or the Bible, or the story re-told in Gibsons movie. Yes, alot of it was claimed to have justification in Christianity, but we should all be able to see that this was only manipulation of scripture. Any Christian that believes that Jews deserve some greater punishment than the rest of us for Christ death clearly has spiritual matters to resolve.

 

Yes, alot of it was claimed to have justification in Christianity, but we should all be able to see that this was only manipulation of scripture. Any Christian that believes that Jews deserve some greater punishment than the rest of us for Christ death clearly has spiritual matters to resolve.

That's fine, so long as Christians understand that they have come to this "final meaning" of biblical text only recently, within the last 55 years. Basically, the vast majority of Christians prior to 1945 got it wrong. What you're saying is that Christians living today are really the first to understand this truth of the Bible.

Someone should also tell the Christian in the "Why don't the Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah" thread who is openly advocating "replacement theology" that the anti-Semitic approach to Christianity has been universally rejected by all Christians.

 

Jabba is offended by the way the movie was directed. Alot of people agree with him. That MAKES the movie offensive.

If I make an ehnic reference, say about Outer Mongolians, that all my friends find harmless, but due to my bad luck one happens to be within earshot and is offended, then I owe him an apology for the offensive remark I made.

 

Jabba, you are offending righteous Christians, both living and past.

Remember the King of Denmark, Wallenberg, the Dutch, the French farmers, the Catholic nuns and many, many others who risked themselves, their families, and their community in the face of evil.

 

Clearly the Holocaust was a turning point for both Christianity and Judaism. For Christians it was a time to reflect about the power of evil ideas and individual responsibility in the face of evil - to think carefully about the worst possible consequences of hundreds and hundreds of years of anti-Jewish philosophizing by Christian theologans and anti-Jewish policy by Christian political leaders. In America, Henry Ford an international hero of 20th century industrialization, who had bought himself a newspaper purely for the purpose of publicly preaching against the Jews, it was a time to become absolutely silent on the issue, at least in public.

But again, in the post Holocaust world, you have to marvel at the insensitivity of The Passion. Is it surprising that the film was made by a man who grew up in a rabidly anti-Semitic household, run by a vocal Holocaust denier?

 

That's fine, so long as Christians understand that they have come to this "final meaning" of biblical text only recently, within the last 55 years. Basically, the vast majority of Christians prior to 1945 got it wrong. What you're saying is that Christians living today are really the first to understand this truth of the Bible.

That's not true.

I know that for as long as my church has existed, they have taught only respect for the Jews, not condemnation. As the LDS Church was organized in 1830, I think that was a bit more than 55 years ago.

Kimball Kinnison

NOTE:

In fact, one of our articles of faith relates directly to the Jews, as well as the rest of the descendents of the Israelites (the Jews were only the tribe of Judah).

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

In 1841, Orson Hyde, one of our modern apostles, travelled to Jerusalem and offered a prayer to dedicate that land for the gathering of Israel. In his prayer, he said:

Thou, O Lord, did once move upon the heart of Cyrus to show favor unto Jerusalem and her children. Do Thou now also be pleased to inspire the hearts of kings and the powers of the earth to look with a friendly eye towards this place, and with a desire to see Thy righteous purposes executed in relation thereto. Let them know that it is Thy good pleasure to restore the kingdom unto Israel--raise up Jerusalem as its capital, and constitute her people a distinct nation and government, with David Thy servant, even a descendant from the loins of ancient David to be their king.

Let that nation or that people who shall take an active part in behalf of Abraham's children, and in the raising up of Jerusalem, find favor in Thy sight. Let not their enemies prevail against them, neither let pestilence or famine overcome them, but let the glory of Israel overshadow them, and the power of the Highest protect them; while that nation or kingdom that will not serve Thee in this glorious work must perish, according to Thy word --- "Yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted."

These ideas are much older than just the last 55 years. Or is that prayer yet another anti-Semitic Christian document?

 

LDS is a special case in light of the fact that its unique doctrinal heritage separates it sharply from all other protestant denominations.

 

LDS is a special case in light of the fact that its unique doctrinal heritage separates it sharply from all other protestant denominations.

We aren't protestants. We didn't break off from any other churches in protest of anything.

But hold on a moment. Let's apply your argument for anti-Semitism to LDS theology.

Basically, we believe that Christians got it wrong after the time of the Apostles. By 1820, God needed to call someone to restore His Church and authority to the earth. Does that make us anti-Christian? We literally teach that Christians got it wrong sometime in the First or Second Centuries and that everything since then has been corrupted (although there have been some truths preserved).

I could find you quotes from the Book of Mormon that have been (incorrectly) interpreted by individuals (both in and out of the Church) as calling the Catholic Church "the great and abominable whore of all the earth". Does that make the Book of Mormon anti-Catholic? (I should point out that as we have a lay clergy, such misinterpretations have occasionally been taught to various congregations as well.)

You can go to Utah today and find people who look down on, and even persecute to a certain extent, members of other faiths, but that has never been in our doctrine. We even had one of our current apostles publicly chastise the entire Church for it a year or two ago.

These are basically the same criteria you have been using with respect to Christianity and Judaism. However, when the same sort of standards are used for other religious relationships, they fail spectacularly. Doesn't that suggest that it might be your criteria that is flawed instead?

Kimball Kinnison

 

"Doesn't that suggest that it might be your criteria that is flawed instead?"

No, but an excellent post nevertheless, Kimball, and I certainly apologize for lumping LDS with protestantism.

I don't think it's as easy as you suggest it is to separate a religion's holy texts from the way they are used by the religion's practitioners. The Passion itself is an excellent example of this phenomenon.

Interpretation of the New Testament, for example, is not all that different from interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. It's easy to quote what the Constitution says, but a lot harder to decide what it means. What the constitution "means" includes not only the text of the document, but 225 + years of constitutional interpretation.

In the same way, the "meaning" of Christianity can't be so easily separated from the meaning given it by all its practitioners throughout history.

So if a Christian sect sets itself up around the doctrinal interpretation that the Jews are God's Chosen people, so that every Christian's duty is to support foreign policy that favors all actions of the state of Israel, since anything the state of Israel does is ordained by God, then, well, that doctrinal interpretation would have to be weighed against all other doctrinal interpretations of Christianity and compared to the lengthy history of Christianity as a whole.

Now, if what you're saying is that Christians need to be judged individually, and perhaps by the Christian denominations they choose to be associated with (i.e. the company they keep), and that painting Christianity as a monolithic block of unmitigated anti-Semitism is unfair, then I agree.

 

The thing is, you are lumping all of the different denominations together as one, but neglecting that they each hold different beleifs.

For example, the Catholic Church did hold teachings that (at least) were interpreted as blaming all Jews for Christ's death, until the Vatican II council (I can't speak definitively for Catholics, so I'll leave that for them). However, by that time, most other Christian denominations had long since rejected the Catholic Church's teachings on many subjects. You can't just lump them together when each has its own interpretation of the Bible.

And that even neglects those members of religions that have gone out on a limb for Jews in the past. How many Catholics and Protestants hid and protected Jews during WWII? If anti-Semitism were as deeply rooted in Christianity, don't you think that many of them (especially the religious leaders) would have avoided helping them?

Even from a historical perspective, you are lumping them all together. Christianity has never been one, single church with a single history at any point in the last 1900 years. The Eastern Orthodox have an entirely different claim to authority than the Catholics, and they both reach all the way back to the time of the Apostles. Are the misdeeds of one the fault of the other as well?

I still suggest that you need to reevaluate your criteria for deciding if something is anti-Semitic. It does seem quite biased, and as my example relating to my own beleifs goes, can fail spectacularly.

Kimball Kinnison

 

"If anti-Semitism were as deeply rooted in Christianity, don't you think that many of them (especially the religious leaders) would have avoided helping them?"

I think it's clear that most people did avoid helping them, not just Germans, but also French, Italians, Dutch, Eastern Europeans, Americans, etc., etc., and that one of the reasons, apart from fear and, in America's case, "security concerns", was that anti-Semitism was deeply rooted in protestant and catholic and eastern orthodox Christianity. It had established itself deep in the heart of all these Christian traditions.

If LDS has avoided having anti-Semitism rear its head throughout the history of that Church, then that is just another manifestation of how distinct it is from other branches of Christianity. Perhaps a film version of The Passion done by devout LDS members would be a spiritual joy to watch.

 

I think it's clear that most people did avoid helping them, not just Germans, but also French, Italians, Dutch, Eastern Europeans, Americans, etc., etc., and that one of the reasons, apart from fear and, in America's case, "security concerns", was that anti-Semitism was deeply rooted in protestant and catholic and eastern orthodox Christianity. It had established itself deep in the heart of all these Christian traditions.

How do you know what the people in Germany, France, Italy, etc were thinking? How do you know what their reasons were? Could it be that many of them were simply scared of being caught? Could it be that many were in occupied countries and were trying hard not to stand out? There are quite a few more reasons to choose from than simply a religious basis.

You are also still lumping all historical Christian traditions into the same group, without justifying that grouping. Again, The Eastern Orthodox Church is a separate tradition from the Catholic one. Are they responsible for the teachings and actions of each other? The Protestants broke away and tried to reform many things, will you blame them for the actions of those that they opposed?

Christianity is not a single entity. It is unfair (and even academically lazy) of you to treat it as such.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, I'm not an academician, so I'm not even sure that I'm constitutionally capable of being academically lazy. But more to the point I think you're ignoring what I wrote. During world war 2, the reaction of catholics, protestants, and eastern orthodox members who came in contact with the final solution was pretty much identical, with the exception of some groups who were even more enthusiastically anti-semitic than the Germans and Austrians themselves.

There were, undoubtedly, many brave Christians who defied the norm for personal spiritual and secular reasons.

But I stand by my belief that the Church, as a whole, and among its many distinct, doctrinally different and extremely diverse elements, failed spectacularly in its response to "the Question." The Holocaust was Christianity's biggest test. How does Christianity respond to the presence of evil? As I said it was a defining moment for Christianity as well as Judaism.

 

There were, undoubtedly, many brave Christians who defied the norm for personal spiritual and secular reasons.

Many of the ones were representatives of the Church, members of the clergy, those who would be best versed in Church doctrine and obedient to its teachings. If the teachings at that time were as anti-Semitic as you claim, then wouldn't you think that they would be the least likely to help, as opposed to some of the most influential and active ones?

But I stand by my belief that the Church, as a whole, and among its many distinct, doctrinally different and extremely diverse elements, failed spectacularly in its response to "the Question." The Holocaust was Christianity's biggest test. How does Christianity respond to the presence of evil? As I said it was a defining moment for Christianity as well as Judaism.

Again, though, you are treating all of Christianity as a homogeneous group. It's not. The only way to adequately determine the teachings of a church is to look at its teachings, not the behavior of its members. If you were to go by the membership of a church, you could conclude that Mormons are serial killers (Ted Bundy), liars and cheats (the current behavior of Darl McBride and other executives of SCO), and other such misdeeds.

However, compare that with the teachings of the religion, and you see that they are at odds with one another. For the most part, Christianity did not teach anti-Semitism, even if some (or even a majority) or its followers practised it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Anti-Semitism in Christian civilization evolved directly from anti-Judaism in Christian theology, because:

1) Christianity defines itself as the fulfillment of Jewish messianism. The fundamental question of how Christianity could be the fulfillment of a Jewish religious tradition that Jews themselves had rejected formed the basis of a broad anti-Jewish tradition.

2) Christianity inherited a preexisting anti-Judaism from the Roman empire which the Christians embraced fairly quickly in their history.

3) Hatred of Jews became incorporated into the structure of Christian canon and civil law.

4) Protestants did not break with these traditions when Luther split from the Catholic church.

5) Christians did not seek to bury this aspect of the religion until the Holocaust revealed itself as the ultimate manifestation of Christian anti-Semitism.

With that in mind, The Passion seems to me to be a throwback to a pre WW2 Christianity in which negative attitudes about Judaism and the Jewish people were widely condoned and often encouraged.

I want to add here that I grew up in the Methodist and southern Baptist churches, attended church every Sunday. The southern Baptist church of my childhoood was deeply and enthusiastically anti-Semitic.

In the modern U.S., I think anti-Islamic feelings have trumped anti-Semitism.

 

And I could provide a parallel for almost every one of your points using the LDS Church and Christianity (with the major difference being that Mormons are Christians).

1) Christianity defines itself as the fulfillment of Jewish messianism. The fundamental question of how Christianity could be the fulfillment of a Jewish religious tradition that Jews themselves had rejected formed the basis of a broad anti-Jewish tradition.

The LDS Church is the restoration of Christ's original Church from ancient times after a long apostasy (around 1600 years). In that time, "Christians" rejected "True Christianity" in favor of false teachings.

2) Christianity inherited a preexisting anti-Judaism from the Roman empire which the Christians embraced fairly quickly in their history.

Mormons developed an intense anti-Christianinsm because of the intense persecution they faced from leaders of "Christian" denominations. (Incidentally, some of my ancestors were ministers who persecuted the Mormons, while others were Mormon Pioneers.) Mormons embraced a distrust and fear of non-mormons.

3) Hatred of Jews became incorporated into the structure of Christian canon and civil law.

Hatred and distrust of non-mormons became incorporated into Utah and Mormon culture.

4) Protestants did not break with these traditions when Luther split from the Catholic church.

This one, I can't speak for definitively because I don't have enough data. It would be irrelevant to my example anyways, as there are very few groups (and almost no major ones) to have broken from the LDS Church.

5) Christians did not seek to bury this aspect of the religion until the Holocaust revealed itself as the ultimate manifestation of Christian anti-Semitism.

Mormons haven't tried to bury this distrust until the past 50-75 years as the Church has become more global in its scope and such attitudes were limiting missionary work.

As you can see, when your criteria ia applied to Mormon-Christian relations, it would lead to the conclusion that Mormons are anti-Christians (which admittedly some peopel do believe). However, is that the truth of our doctrines? Not at all.

That suggests that there is a flaw in your criteria, or that you are allowing other perceptions to influence the way you apply it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Even though I don't agree with any of your 5 points, I'm particularly interested in your justification for this :

The Passion seems to me to be a throwback to a pre WW2 Christianity in which negative attitudes about Judaism and the Jewish people were widely condoned and often encouraged.

How so? Please tell us WHY you believe this. You insist that it is true, but you haven't presented evidence.

 

Jeez, Jabba, I wish you would stop spinning around and around...

Christians did not have anti-semitism IN THE BEGINNING of the New Testament and throughout. It wasn't until after when people in leadership found that they could control other people via the church that anti-semitism abounded.

The "movement" that has been around for the past 55 years isn't really "new." It is being revitalized. Just becuase you're anti-religious doesn't mean you have to make things up or twist things around to show your dislike for Christians.

 

I don't dislike Christians. Who ever said that? My wife's a devout catholic. She is raising our children in the catholic church. I'm not making any assumptions about your personal beliefs. Don't make assumptions about mine. If all Christians were as overt in their belief that intolerance has no place in the Faith as many posters here seem to be, then Christianity would have a real future in this world.

I'm not sure what you think I've "twisted around" but it's not my understanding of Christian history.

March 31, PARIS (Reuters) - French Roman Catholic bishops have officially denounced Mel Gibson's controversial film "The Passion of the Christ," which opened in France on Wednesday, as potentially anti-Semitic and a distortion of Christian teaching.

"In this film, the face of Christ shows through less than the obsessions of our times -- the dread of evil, fascination with violence and the search for the guilty," the information committee of the bishops' conference declared.

"(The film's) violence, which overwhelms the spectator, ends up blotting out the meaning of the Passion and the essence of Christ's person and message -- love carried to its perfection by the voluntary giving of one's self," said the bishops.

 

It would be nice if you (and the French Catholic bishops) would cite specific examples why this movie is dangerous. It also hides the fact that France has battled with it's own specific brand of anti-Semitism for many years, which has nothing to do with the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I can play the news article game too.

"'Passion' Prompts Confession From Neo-Nazi

By Associated Press
Published March 30, 2004, 9:46 AM CST

OSLO, Norway -- A Norwegian man trying to put his neo-Nazi past behind him confessed to bombing a youth group's headquarters in the 1990s, saying he admitted his guilt after seeing "The Passion of the Christ."

The Oslo district court on Monday ordered Johnny Olsen, 41, held for two weeks for investigation after he turned himself in to police during the weekend. He said he conducted two bombings in 1994 and 1995 of a left-wing youth group's headquarters. No one was injured in the separate attacks on the Blitz House in downtown Oslo.

Olsen, who was convicted of murder when he was a teenager and served 12 years in prison, said he was moved to his confession by Mel Gibson's film that graphically portrays Christ's crucifixion.

As he entered the courtroom for his detention hearing Monday, Olsen, in a choked voice, told reporters that "Jesus lives" and "I distance myself from my past and neo-Nazism."

His attorney, Fridtjof Feydt, told newspapers that he was stunned by his client's confession, describing it as a "bolt of lightning" after Olsen saw the film.

Olsen is being investigated for arson in the bombings. If convicted, it is likely he would get a mild sentence because he confessed and because he led police to an illegal weapons stash.

The film has inspired at least one other person to confess to a crime.

In Texas, Dan R. Leach, 21, saw the film and admitted killing his girlfriend, whose death in January had been ruled a suicide.
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press "