Gibson 'Passion' to open on 2,000 screens

[tiger_rascal]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/14/leisure.passion.reut/index.html

Gibson 'Passion' to open on 2,000 screens

Wednesday, January 14, 2004 Posted: 4:33 PM EST (2133 GMT)

LOS ANGELES, Reuters (Reuters) -- Sometimes a little faith can go a long way.

Mel Gibson's controversial new film, "The Passion of Christ," which at first had a hard time finding a distributor, will be independently released on about 2,000 screens in the United States next month, a Gibson spokesman said on Wednesday.

A release on 2,000 screens is similar to what a major studio release would receive.

The movie, whose dialogue is in Latin and Aramaic, covers the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus Christ and has come under fire from some Jewish groups who claim its story could foment anti-Semitism by tying Christ's death to Jewish authorities.

But Catholic and Protestant groups, as well as biblical scholars, have defended the film, saying it sticks closely to accounts of the crucifixion as told in the New Testament.

Pope John Paul saw the movie in December and told his longtime Polish secretary Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, "It is as it was," meaning he considered it an authentic portrayal of Gospel accounts, a Vatican source told Reuters.

Even though Gibson is a high-profile actor and Oscar winning director of films such as "Braveheart," "Passion of Christ" could not find a major motion picture studio that would distribute it due to the controversy.

In October, Gibson's Icon Productions film company and independent movie specialist Newmarket Films agreed to jointly distribute "Passion of Christ" starting on February 25.

Independent films normally start in small releases in only a few theaters. As their popularity grows, the distributor will place the film in hundreds of theaters around the country.

Newmarket's "Whale Rider," for instance, peaked at just over 550 screens this past summer.

[Leezard]

I had totally forgotten, there was a poster for it in my local AMC a few weeks ago when I was there. I'm really looking forward to this movie!

[Leezard]

Oh, and the cousin of one of the members of the BSB forum is in a christian band and they are going to be recording a song for the movie-I'm assuming for the sound track. www.castingcrowns.com You should check out their music, it's really good stuff!

[AlmostFamous]

I am looking forward to seeing that movie too! That whole time in history is fascinating to me and I'm sure it will be quite dramatic.

What I don't understand is why the Jewish community is so up in arms over this movie. I haven't read much about the movie, but it maintains the historical value of it so what's the big deal? I don't think it is going to cause a Anti-Semetism rally or anything.

I guess it's like when the Japanese had a problem with "Pearl Harbor". That's how it happened, folks. Get over it. And after the movie, I was not compelled to go out and stalk Japanese and beat them down or hold anything against them. It happened so long ago anyway. Besides, they were just doing what their leaders told them to do.

I rarely actually get to go to the movies, so if you guys see it, let us know what you thought!

[Earl Purple]

bet it won't be as good as Life Of Brian though

[oldernow]

It will be better.:wink:

[young again]

Originally posted by AlmostFamous
What I don't understand is why the Jewish community is so up in arms over this movie.

Here's a FAQ:
http://www.adl.org/interfaith/gibson_qa.asp

[MerrySunshine]

This is what I don't get: Having read the link young again provided and many other articles of the same bent, I understand that in the past there have been stereotyping of Jews based upon passion plays. But aren't we living in a, supposedly, more enlightened society? A more enlightened society that is able to, for instance, watch a movie like Schindler's List and understand that, while there were many evil Germans during the time of WWII who killed millions of people -- Jews (mostly), Catholics, and others, that not all Germans living today are like that, and that there were even decent Germans at the time (like Oskar Schindler) who helped save people at great peril to their own lives. We can understand that bad people in power does not mean that all of those people are bad.

So too with the story of Christ . . . . If the story tells an accurate depiction of the story of Christ from the Bible we will see the following: (1) proud, corrupt Jewish leaders threatened by Jesus's claims as the Messiah (for his being Messiah would unseat them in their positions of power over Israel); (2) more-or-less amused and indifferent, but nevertheless, ruthless Roman overlords also threatened by Jesus because he was a rabble-rouser who threaten the peace in the region they called Palestine (what the Jews called Israel) because he upset the Jewish leaders; (3) kind, faithful ordinary Jews who have contact with Jesus every day, some of whom join with him (including one of the Jewish leaders, Nicodemus); and (4) also some everyday Jews who will choose to follow the corrupt leaders and sort of get caught up in a mob mentality (which is not an uncommon thing to happen in society -- we've seen it recently, actually, in Iraq). This doesn't paint all Jews as bad, but shows the complex palate of the story.

What's lost, I think, in this discussion is that nearly every person in the story, including Jesus, was a Jew. The only folks who were not Jews were the Romans who were mainly just soldiers and rulers (like Pontius Pilate). The only Jews painted in a bad light in the film are those corrupt leaders. Not the regular folk, not all Jews. Just the corruption at the top. If we are enlightened enough to see that, in spite of the fact that there were people like Hitler and Himmler at the top, not all Germans were or are bad, we are also enlightened enough to see that, in spite of the fact that there were people like Caiaphas (the high priest of the Temple at the time) in control at the time of Jesus, not all Jews were or are bad.

Too, I've heard from many Jewish folk over the years -- even some of my Jewish friends -- the phrase that Christians resent Jews because "we killed Jesus." I'm always baffled by this because (a) I don't believe it and have never been taught that "the Jews" killed Jesus and (b) there is nothing to be resentful about in the death of Jesus. It was an awful, painful death, to be sure. But one that, if you read the Gospels, was destined from the beginning. When Peter tried to protect him when the soldiers come to take him away, Jesus tells him to put away the sword because, basically, he, Jesus, must drink of the cup the Father has given him. He knew he had to die. It was even prophesied that he would come and would be the sacrifice to save us. Without his death, my life in God would not be possible. His death, though a painful, awful thing for him to endure, is my salvation. I can never be resentful of that death, only thankful that he willingly gave his life for me.

But back to the story . . . . To remove from the story of Christ the fact that there were corrupt Jewish leaders at the time, changes the story as much as removing Hitler from the Holocost changes it. It's terrible that there were corrupt Jewish leaders at the time, and very sad, but there it is. Even the Jewish historian of the time (under Flavius), Josephus (a Pharisee during the first century A.D.), acknowleges and independently verifies it was the Jewish leaders, not all Jews, who worked with Pilate: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles . . . and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did not forsake him . . . ." Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 33 (emphasis added). So to take that part out impermissibly alters the story, even from an extra-Biblical historical perspective.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think that we can all understand, that, to be quite cliche now, a few bad apples does not ruin the bunch. I don't understand this fear that it somehow casts a negative light on "the Jews" (as in every Jew, everywhere, in any time), unless it is a fear that people are not as well enlightened as we'd otherwise like to believe. And, let's face it, the majority of people who will be seeing this film are Christians. (And if not Christians, skeptics, ready to disbelieve the story anyway, eh?) So, in truth, the fear is that Christians will somehow become anti-Semetic because they see this film. I'll tell you the truth, if we're not anti-Semetic because of what we've read in our Bibles (that is, the story of Jesus retold four different times each with the same figures and the same result), the story being told on the screen won't suddenly make us so. I have more faith that people are able to understand the story as reflecting on one particular group of bad guys at one particular time. After all, this is how it has always been taught to me and how I've always read it to be. The story casts a negative light on THOSE Jews in power at THAT time. If the movie plays like my Bible reads, it will also cast a negative light on THOSE Jews in power at THAT time.

Have we not advanced past painting one group of people with a large brush based upon the actions of a few of that group's members? Have we really not? I suppose that fear of history repeating itself is somewhat understandable, if not a bit cynicial, a view of the world. I am more hopeful and have a more positive view of people. I believe that people can change and that our knowledge and understanding of different people and different cultures today will and does inform our understanding of the world and of this story. I do believe that we are capable of seeing a movie that depicts some folks of a certain segment of people in a negative light and not attribute that negativity to all persons in that segement of the population. Then again, here I am, a Southerner, who still hasn't been forgiven for slavery in which my ancestors never participated and segregation in which I was never a part. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I don't think so. I think that we are able to discern the difference between THOSE certain Jews 2000+ years ago and ALL Jews everywhere for all time. At least, I am. I look forward to seeing the film to see just how it matches up with my understanding of the Christ story.

[oldernow]

Well said Merry..

[young again]

Originally posted by MerrySunshine
But aren't we living in a, supposedly, more enlightened society?

The Jews living in post-"enlightenment" Germany thought so too, right up until they started getting shipped out of town in boxcars.

If we are enlightened enough to see that, in spite of the fact that there were people like Hitler and Himmler at the top, not all Germans were or are bad, we are also enlightened enough to see that, in spite of the fact that there were people like Caiaphas (the high priest of the Temple at the time) in control at the time of Jesus, not all Jews were or are bad.

Wow. There is a lot packed into this statement that I'm sure you didn't mean to put there, but let me respectfully respond. First of all, with the best of intentions, you have managed to compare ancient Jewish leaders to Hitler, and you wonder why Jews are concerned about passion plays? Second, I feel the need to point out that Hitler wouldn't have been able to carry out his "final solution" without the explicit or implicit cooperation of the vast majority of German society.

Too, I've heard from many Jewish folk over the years -- even some of my Jewish friends -- the phrase that Christians resent Jews because "we killed Jesus." I'm always baffled by this because (a) I don't believe it and have never been taught that "the Jews" killed Jesus and (b) there is nothing to be resentful about in the death of Jesus.

In a strange way I find the bafflement of yourself and other board members to be heartening. In general, the view of Jews as Christ-killers is more associated with pre-Vatican-II Catholicism and with Eastern churches than with American, fundamentalist Protestantism - which in fact tends to be a great supporter of Israel (even if some of you still persist in trying to convert us! Hello, we HAVE a religion already!).

I suppose that fear of history repeating itself is somewhat understandable, if not a bit cynicial, a view of the world.

I wasn't going to play the "Hitler card" but since you brought it up, bottom line is, there are people still alive today who tried and nearly succeeded at committing genocide. And it wasn't that long ago that the Palestinians' official policy goal was of gaining control over Israel by driving the Jews into the sea (this is pre-intefada; I'm not even taking into account the suicide bombings of recent years). And even in the near-absence of Jews, there is an upsurge in antisemitic acts in Europe. We're not talking about the Inquisition, Crusades, or even pogroms (the specific fear usually associated with passion plays) here. We're talking about stuff so recent it hardly deserves the label "history."

That said, I hope you are right.

[young again]

Originally posted by AlmostFamous
I guess it's like when the Japanese had a problem with "Pearl Harbor". That's how it happened, folks. Get over it.

I deliberately left this one alone earlier. I don't even want to go there. But honestly, with friends like this... :(

[MerrySunshine]

Originally posted by young again
The Jews living in post-"enlightenment" Germany thought so too, right up until they started getting shipped out of town in boxcars.

I'm talking about post-WWII enlightenment where we're all touch-feely and hypersensitive to each other's peculiarities (in the best sense of that world) not post "Age of Enlightenment." The world pre-WWII was very polarized. We're not like that anymore. We're more global and universal, less nationalistic and insular. (It wasn't just Jews, BTW, though I'm sure you know. Half of my best friend's Polish Catholic family also died in the death camps. Her grandmother watched a murdered baby's grave plowed under by the Nazis as she worked for them in another field.)

Wow. There is a lot packed into this statement that I'm sure you didn't mean to put there, but let me respectfully respond. First of all, with the best of intentions, you have managed to compare ancient Jewish leaders to Hitler, and you wonder why Jews are concerned about passion plays? Second, I feel the need to point out that Hitler wouldn't have been able to carry out his "final solution" without the explicit or implicit cooperation of the vast majority of German society.

I made the comparison deliberately, actually. It's hyperbole to make a point, which the emotionally charged word "Hitler" may have obscured. This is the point: if there were nice people (like Schindler and others) under the most horrible man who ever lived (Hitler), would there not be nice people under the run-of-the-mill corrupt Jewish leaders of Jesus's day (decidedly less horrible than Hitler)? My point is, if there were even a few good people under the most horrible person ever, then why would there be the implication that every Jew of Jesus's day (and thereafter) was as corrupt as the corrupt leader, Caiaphas? It is logically ridiculous. And to think that people like me, for instance, won't get that it's illogical is also ridiculous.

In a strange way I find the bafflement of yourself and other board members to be heartening. In general, the view of Jews as Christ-killers is more associated with pre-Vatican-II Catholicism and with Eastern churches than with American, fundamentalist Protestantism - which in fact tends to be a great supporter of Israel (even if some of you still persist in trying to convert us! Hello, we HAVE a religion already!).

It should hearten you further, then, that we see a clear demarcation between the bad guys in the Jesus story and the regular folks then and all Jewish folks now, eh?

I wasn't going to play the "Hitler card" but since you brought it up, bottom line is, there are people still alive today who tried and nearly succeeded at committing genocide. And it wasn't that long ago that the Palestinians' official policy goal was of gaining control over Israel by driving the Jews into the sea (this is pre-intefada; I'm not even taking into account the suicide bombings of recent years). And even in the near-absence of Jews, there is an upsurge in antisemitic acts in Europe. We're not talking about the Inquisition, Crusades, or even pogroms (the specific fear usually associated with passion plays) here. We're talking about stuff so recent it hardly deserves the label "history."

I understand that, but my point is that for some of us this fear of anti-Semitism hits a nerve for those of us who would never be that way. If feels like we will be painted with a big anti-Semite brush if we end up liking the film and saying that it's a fair representation of our reading of the Bible. Do you see that? Just because a story will incite some evil people to do something that is against God's will (hurt people), doesn't make it historically inaccurate or unfaithful to the Biblical story. And it doesn't make us anti-Semites if we end up thinking that the film is a good film and a fair representation of the story. That's my biggest problem with the ADL's comments. Even having not seen the film, it smacks of revisionist history to me: "Let's make sure that that bad guy Caiaphas isn't painted as quite such a jerk who was in Pontius Pilate's hip pocket. And, by the way, any of you who like the film are probably anti-Semetic." That's what I read (part of it, anyway) when I read those comments. If I like the film and think it is a fair representation, I will be labeled an anti-Semite, which I am decidedly and absolutely not.

I understand that there are jerks out there who did and/or are doing awful things to/against Jews. But are these Palestinians (Muslims) and Neo-Nazis really going to be fueled by a Christ story? Wouldn't they be doing these things anyway, without the film? I think that, unfortunately, and sadly, they probably would. Muslim's doing even buy the truth of our Jesus story and believe it was someone else who was crucified. Neo-Nazis are now often anti-all religion. I think that these jerks would, tragically, do the same things even without this film.

[bluehorizonx10]

If Jesus could forgive His own accusers and crucifiers, Jews and Romans, then why can't we? :bluesad: Lest we not forget the people crying at the feet of Jesus on the cross were His own Jewish family and friends. If we didn't learn that valuable lesson of forgiveness from Jesus Himself, then we better rethink our hearts and souls anyway.

If anyone wants to cause any trouble over this truly portrayed life of Christ movie, they were looking for something to cause trouble over anyway. It in itself won't be the reason.

[oldernow]

I dont believe that this movie is going to cause those who see it to hate the Jewish people. Although I do understand youngagain, how you feel. I will say that their is plenty of anti-semitism going around, more than people know. The sad fact is that people just hate Jews because they are Jews, and that in itself is disgusting. I see it everyday and it makes me angry. I do believe that those who are against the Jews are always going to be against them, not because this movie but because they are who they are. As for the movie, people know the story already this wont make a difference. And the ones who are against this movie being shown are in my opinion drawing more attention to it.

[LesterX]

Originally posted by bluehorizonx10
If anyone wants to cause any trouble over this truly portrayed life of Christ movie, they were looking for something to cause trouble over anyway. It in itself won't be the reason.

Have you see the film? If not, how could you possibly know that this is a "truly portrayed life of Christ movie"? I have no clue if the ADL's perceptions of the film and its repercussions are accurate, but at least their comments are based on having actually attended a screening of the film.

[oldernow]

^There have been other reviews of the movie and they all said that it does portray the the Life of Jesus accurately according to the Bible.

[bluehorizonx10]

But Catholic and Protestant groups, as well as biblical scholars, have defended the film, saying it sticks closely to accounts of the crucifixion as told in the New Testament.

Pope John Paul saw the movie in December and told his longtime Polish secretary Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, "It is as it was," meaning he considered it an authentic portrayal of Gospel accounts, a Vatican source told Reuters.


Well, Lester, I've read all the articles that have been posted here. I can't remember the details, but seems to me they were written from people who previewed it and had faith in Christ so knew His story. I took their word, so I won't be able to answer if it's real imo until I see it. But that is the way all who've commented on seeing it have relayed their opinion. I trust the opinion's of Pope John Paul and the other Christian groups.

:confused:You seem so angry at me everytime you post back to me. :bluesad: What have I ever done to you?

[LesterX]

Originally posted by bluehorizonx10
Well, Lester, I've read all the articles that have been posted here. I can't remember the details, but seems to me they were written from people who previewed it and had faith in Christ so knew His story. I took their word, so I won't be able to answer if it's real imo until I see it. But that is the way all who've commented on seeing it have relayed their opinion. I trust the opinion's of Pope John Paul and the other Christian groups.

:confused:You seem so angry at me everytime you post back to me. :bluesad: What have I ever done to you?

I'm simply expressing my opinion, as you do on a regular basis. If you are going to describe something as a true representation, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you to actually make that judgment for yourself.

You have no problem expressing your viewpoints in very strong terms, but seem to have a real problem with others who do the same when they disagree with you. There's a poster on the political board that you seem to react to very strongly. Should I conclude you have a personal problem with her, or rather that you simply disagree strongly with her ideas? I would have assumed it was the latter, but based on your comment here maybe that's not a safe assumption.

[young again]

Originally posted by MerrySunshine
I'm talking about post-WWII enlightenment where we're all touch-feely and hypersensitive to each other's peculiarities

Well, that's one way of putting it. A pretty derogatory way, suggesting that maybe you don't agree with being respectful of other perspectives?

Originally posted by MerrySunshine
... it smacks of revisionist history to me: "Let's make sure that that bad guy Caiaphas isn't painted as quite such a jerk who was in Pontius Pilate's hip pocket... "

You are equating the NT account of the crucifixion with "history" i.e., some sort of objective account (as if such a thing were possible). I don't have any sources readily accessible, and I don't have time to do the research, but surely you are aware that not everyone accepts the NT as "history."

[young again]

Originally posted by oldernow
The sad fact is that people just hate Jews because they are Jews, and that in itself is disgusting. I see it everyday and it makes me angry. I do believe that those who are against the Jews are always going to be against them, not because this movie but because they are who they are.

These sorts of comments ignore the historic role of the church in inciting antisemitism. It's like saying "some people just hate blacks because they are blacks" without recognizing the historical and social context of the hatred. Edit - almost forgot to clarify, that's NOT to say that all white people are racists, any more than it is to say that all Christians, or all people who might like a movie illustrating the NT account of the death of Christ are antisemites.

[young again]

Originally posted by oxymoron
The history of the death of Christ in the bible is that history as understood from a Christian perspective. While that is certainly a popular and legitimate perspective, other perspectives are possible as well.

<snip>

So, I have no problem with Mel Gibson making this film. Personally, I believe, however, that people should understand that this is one perspective--that of a Catholic whose father is a holocaust denier--on what really happened. The truth is we can never know...and it is the stories that captivate us the most and the storytellers with the most power--be it financial, political or religious--whose stories our society comes to see as the real "truth."

Yes! That, and everything else you said.

[tiger_rascal]

I will take the Bibles version of the story of Jesus Christ over any other. That is just my faith that the Bible is divinely inspired and is the Word of God. I hope this movie portrays the crucifixion of Jesus Christ accurately according to the Holy Bible.

[bluehorizonx10]

Originally posted by LesterX
I'm simply expressing my opinion, as you do on a regular basis. If you are going to describe something as a true representation, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you to actually make that judgment for yourself.

You have no problem expressing your viewpoints in very strong terms, but seem to have a real problem with others who do the same when they disagree with you. There's a poster on the political board that you seem to react to very strongly. Should I conclude you have a personal problem with her, or rather that you simply disagree strongly with her ideas? I would have assumed it was the latter, but based on your comment here maybe that's not a safe assumption.

I'm sorry you feel you have preview my posts on all the boards and make a decision as to whether I'm fair or not. I've had noone complain to me but you. I'd be glad to take this to PM's as it's not the other's need to hear our problems, if in fact we have any. But you've done this for a long time now. I just wonder what I've done to make you angry with me.

[Earl Purple]

There have been many blood libels against Jews in the last 2000 years and a large proportion of them happened between Easter and Pentecost - in fact one of the reasons given why Jews keep the Omer-counting period as one of mild mourning is because of the disasters that have struck the Jews during this time.

In fact, on Tisha B'Av (which does not fall in this period) we read about the massacres of the Jews of Worms and other German towns during the Crusade period in the late 13th century (which occurred during this period).

One of the main reasons why Jews are persecuted though is because we refuse to accept Jesus as Messiah, and that we are often seen as obstinate for that exact reason. And that we believe that the Old Testament is our own, and was given to us.

[LesterX]

Originally posted by bluehorizonx10
I'm sorry you feel you have preview my posts on all the boards and make a decision as to whether I'm fair or not. I've had noone complain to me but you. I'd be glad to take this to PM's as it's not the other's need to hear our problems, if in fact we have any. But you've done this for a long time now. I just wonder what I've done to make you angry with me.

Preview your posts?!? I have been reading and posting on the political board since before you came to Live Daily. Let me assure you that I don't run around LD in search of your posts.

There is no reason to take this to PMs. You have done nothing to me personally; you have strong opinions and I have strong opinions, and those opinions are usually diametrically opposed. I will continue to post as I please, as I'm sure you will. If you choose to make it personal, then I'm sorry, but that's your issue not mine. You can always use the ol' ignore button.

[bluehorizonx10]

Preview your posts?!? I have been reading and posting on the political board since before you came to Live Daily. Let me assure you that I don't run around LD in search of your posts.

There is no reason to take this to PMs. You have done nothing to me personally; you have strong opinions and I have strong opinions, and those opinions are usually diametrically opposed. I will continue to post as I please, as I'm sure you will. If you choose to make it personal, then I'm sorry, but that's your issue not mine. You can always use the ol' ignore button.


Thank you for the suggestion. All I can do is say I'm sorry if I've offended you in any way or hurt anyone anywhere. It certainly was not intentional if I did. I only post with my opinions the same as you do or anyone on these boards.

[oldernow]

Earlpurple, The Muslims and the Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. It seems to me that the Muslims hate the Jews so it cannot be because the Jews do not except Jesus. In my life time I have never met a Christian ( not someone who is a Christian in name only) who hated the Jewish people because they dont except Jesus. The point being that Jesus wants us to treat everyone with love and respect and the Jewish people in particular are who God chose to give us the scriptures. If a Christian hates a Jewish person for the reasons you say then that person is not a Christian. All through history, even before Jesus was born the Israelites have been persecuted. God picked this group of people and since then the world has been at their throats. Not the Christian but those who reject God, The Israelites are the apple of Gods eye he made a promise and a covenant with Israel and we fully understand that they are also Gods people.

[oldernow]

Young again, Your right about the Church The Church was not truly a Church, if they were they would not have done what they did. If I was to witness any church today, repeat what was done in the past I would be the first to condemn them. And I assure you that I would not be alone.

[oldernow]

Oxymoron, the history of the death of Christ is part of History. It was a historical event. Jesus walked on this earth their are other sources that testify to this.

[tiger_rascal]

oxymoron, I can read the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in the Bible. I will know if the movie "Passion" does not match up with the words in the Bible. I understand what you are saying about the trivial stuff, but I honestly am not concerned about trivial interpretations.

[bluehorizonx10]

I agree there could be some attitudes in the movie that will reflect this day and age. But the story itself cannot be changed unless we that know the Bible story to begin with would see that. And as I have read, many of the viewers so far have been proclaimed Christian's.

There are eleven books in the OT with direct prophecy to the coming of the Messiah with details of the birth, life, death, and even the resurrection of Jesus. These were foretold many many years before the actual life of Christ on earth. The story didn't deviate then, nor will it now.

One such prophecy is Isaiah 9:6-7. Quite frankly I looked in a Bible concordance and to my surprise there were two pages of scripture references in the OT directly related back to the NT on the prophecy of the Messiah. And I might add it was fulfilled to the letter when Jesus was born. We have to remember this scripture was written down for all to read for all times, and revealed to the prophets directly from God.The gospels were written by more than one and all stories were alike. The point is the story never changed. If it hasn't in all these years it won't. So we can all that know the Bible scripture, or even others who can look it up, will see whether the story is depicted correctly when we view it. That's why I trusted the Christian's who've preveiwed it to say it was correctly portrayed.

And yes, this is all written from my Christian viewpoint, believing fully that Jesus Christ was in fact God's Son and lived and died here on earth, only to resurrect with eternal life again.

[MerrySunshine]

Originally posted by young again
Well, that's one way of putting it. A pretty derogatory way, suggesting that maybe you don't agree with being respectful of other perspectives?

Not at all. In fact, it's just an antiquated way of talking and writing, which I do (probably influenced by my leisure reading being stuck pre 1900). I do, actually agree with being respectful of other perspectives and I am, frankly, shocked that you would accuse me not being given all the time I've spent here being concerned about the chance that I might be labeled anti-Semetic. Is it just because I'm speaking out on this issue disagreeing with the rather strong tack taken by the ADL? That I'm concerned that if I do find that the film matches my reading of the Bible that, from what the ADL says, that somehow implicitly makes me an anti-Semite? If anything, that should show that I am, in fact, concerned about other perspectives as I am not anti-Semetic and do not wish to be labeled as such.

You are equating the NT account of the crucifixion with "history" i.e., some sort of objective account (as if such a thing were possible). I don't have any sources readily accessible, and I don't have time to do the research, but surely you are aware that not everyone accepts the NT as "history."

I am well aware of that. But, actually, Josephus, the Jewish historian of the same period I mentioned earlier, gives a less detailed, but rather similar account of the life (and death) of Christ. I quoted him earlier and he does name the Jewish authorities as conspiring with Pilate. Not New Testament. Not Christian. And a respected source for historical evidence regarding other aspects of the Roman Empire during that period.

[MerrySunshine]

Originally posted by oldernow
Young again, Your right about the Church The Church was not truly a Church, if they were they would not have done what they did. If I was to witness any church today, repeat what was done in the past I would be the first to condemn them. And I assure you that I would not be alone.

I agree with this absolutely as well as with what oldernow said in her earlier post that Israel is the apple of God's eye and it has been the people, whether they labeled themselves as Christian or not, who are without God that have attacked and continue to attack her.

[MerrySunshine]

Originally posted by oxymoron
Although I understand your point is "accurately according to the Bible," I would also like to suggest that "accurately" and "according to the bible" are not necessarily identical. In fact, my previous post suggests that there is no way to portray an event "accurately."

I agree, I guess. ;) We'll see if it accurately portrays the Biblical story on Feb. 25th when it's released. (Personally, of course, I believe that the Biblical story is historical as well, but I understand, as acknowledged earlier, that others do not hold the same view.)

Certainly, we can establish standards of consensus that can be used in judgement, such as 9 people said Jesus had long hair and 1 said he was bald. It seems reasonable then to assume that Jesus hair was really long. This does, however, ignore the possibility that all the people who claimed he had long hair could have had a business selling hair tonic. And so, they actually made up the whole story. Not saying that's what really happpened. But I have a business trying to convince people to see the world in a different way. So that's my story...And I'm sticking to it.

It very well could be a true story, actually. ;) The historical record shows that Jewish men of the time, of which Jesus was one (and an observant one at that), wore their hair short and the women wore their hair long. My guess, and that's all it is, is that the long-haired Jesus is probably a product of the long-haired Medieval period in Europe. Too, there's some Biblical evidence that Jewish men of the time were to wear their hair short in First or Second Corinthians (would have to go look it up) where there is a condemnation of men who wear their hair long by Paul. Would be very odd for Paul to condemn a hairstyle for men that Jesus himself wore, eh? My guess is that Jesus was probably a short haired fellow. Sorry, couldn't resist the hair discussion since we've tread that ground many, many times before in this forum. :)

[Sinister]

Originally posted by oxymoron
Not saying it wasn't a historical event. But so was Clinton's presidency. I read one book on it by James Carville and another by Ann Coulter. Funny, how history can sound so different depending upon who was telling it.

Excellent point.

[young again]

Originally posted by MerrySunshine
I do, actually agree with being respectful of other perspectives and I am, frankly, shocked that you would accuse me not being given all the time I've spent here being concerned about the chance that I might be labeled anti-Semetic. [/B]

Every one of your posts I have read suggests that you are very respectful of others' perspectives. That's why I was so surprised by your choice of language in your responses to this topic, and why I even bothered to pursue it this far rather than just post the link to the ADL FAQ and leave it at that.

I haven't seen the movie so I don't have a personal opinion one way or the other. But let's say it turns out to be as bad as it could be - replete with hook-nosed moneylenders and all that. Do I think that its likely audience - Christians who are serious about Christianity, strive to live a Christlike life, and are great supporters of Israel - is going to be inspired to commit hate crimes against their Jewish neighbors like a bunch of ignorant 19th-century peasants? No, of course not. I would fear something more insidious having to do with what our increasingly Christian society accepts as truth, and how that can frame the discourse on any number of issues. If you see the movie and you think it is a good depiction of the Biblical account, then it doesn't make you an anti-semite. Hopefully the sort of conversation we are having here would make you (broadly speaking, not just YOU) more aware that the Biblical account has been used for centuries to focus the hatred of people-who-hate toward the Jews both directly (e.g., Eastertime pogroms) and indirectly (e.g., by forming the substrate in which conspiracy theories can thrive). There's a bit of self-interest here - thoughtful Christians make the world safer for Jews - but it seems to me that a more thoughtful Christianity is a stronger Christianity too.

[MerrySunshine]

Originally posted by young again
Every one of your posts I have read suggests that you are very respectful of others' perspectives. That's why I was so surprised by your choice of language in your responses to this topic, and why I even bothered to pursue it this far rather than just post the link to the ADL FAQ and leave it at that.

I spoke strongly because I wanted to express strongly how much it hurts to have it implied that approval of the film would somehow equate to anti-Semitism. I know from your past posts that you would never feel that way, but the way the ADL's site (and other articles I've read) is worded, that's the message that comes across to the Christian. As I said, it's like being painted with a big ol' "you hate us" brush. :( And it makes me very sad and hurts very much. Jews don't like to be stereotyped; neither do Christians. And I must say that I felt quite stereotyped reading what the ADL writer wrote. It does hurt, as I'm sure you know. I read an article recently by a rabbi who counsels against protesting the film. Instead, he would like to use it as an avenue for dialog. I think that's incredibly wise. :) And I think that this sort of discussion is part of such dialog.

I haven't seen the movie so I don't have a personal opinion one way or the other. But let's say it turns out to be as bad as it could be - replete with hook-nosed moneylenders and all that. Do I think that its likely audience - Christians who are serious about Christianity, strive to live a Christlike life, and are great supporters of Israel - is going to be inspired to commit hate crimes against their Jewish neighbors like a bunch of ignorant 19th-century peasants? No, of course not. I would fear something more insidious having to do with what our increasingly Christian society accepts as truth, and how that can frame the discourse on any number of issues. If you see the movie and you think it is a good depiction of the Biblical account, then it doesn't make you an anti-semite. Hopefully the sort of conversation we are having here would make you (broadly speaking, not just YOU) more aware that the Biblical account has been used for centuries to focus the hatred of people-who-hate toward the Jews both directly (e.g., Eastertime pogroms) and indirectly (e.g., by forming the substrate in which conspiracy theories can thrive). There's a bit of self-interest here - thoughtful Christians make the world safer for Jews - but it seems to me that a more thoughtful Christianity is a stronger Christianity too.

Exactly the sort of discussion the rabbi was talking about in the article! :) There is great historical hatred and stereotyping of Jews. You have no further to look than William Shakespeare's plays! While I love them, I am always uncomfortable with the portrayal of Jews in them. It's never kind. :( It's just a single example of how history has been unkind to the Jews. But too, I think that we are so much better and more open and culturally aware now than we ever were . . . and Christians are more thoughtful. :) Anyway, I think this was a good discussion because it has brought forward (a) that there has been historical abuse of Jews and (b) that blanket remarks that a depiction of the Christ story will turn people against the Jews hurts many of us who love the Jewish people. Maybe some sensitivity on both sides is in order, eh? ;)

For now, muah!, let's kiss and make up! :D

[oldernow]

Hopefully the sort of conversation we are having here would make you (broadly speaking, not just YOU) more aware that the Biblical account has been used for centuries to focus the hatred of people-who-hate toward the Jews both directly (e.g., Eastertime pogroms) and indirectly (e.g., by forming the substrate in which conspiracy theories can thrive).

What I dont understand is, if the Biblical account has been used to focus hatred toward the Jews, than where on earth does it say in the Bible?

I am a bit upset by this comment only because there is so much hate toward the Jews today and it is not coming from Christians. All you need do is look what is surrounding Israel to know who is doing the hating. And I might add that I have seen it in these forums how people blame Israel when they get attacked by these terrorists, and that they are the ones at fault. This is not coming from the Christian it is coming from those who do not have God. I will say it again Israel was a target way before Jesus was born or the New Testament was written. It's not the Bible who is the enemy, it is those who oppose the Bible.

[young again]

Merry - smooches!

Oldernow - You are correct that anti-Semitism predates Christianity and that the main danger today is not from Christians. But my statements on this thread are in response to questions as to why some Jewish groups are concerned about Gibson's upcoming film. I'm not saying the New Testament is inherently anti-Semitic. Just that SOME Christian leaders have HISTORICALLY been anti-Semitic on the basis that the Jews (a) killed, and more importantly (b) continue to reject Jesus. Read a little Martin Luther if you need a primary source. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges that Passion plays have historically been problematic and urges careful consideration in how Jews are depicted. Christian-Jewish relations have improved greatly in recent decades. Some are concerned that this film may be a step in the wrong direction. I think that's about all I have to say on this topic.

[tiger_rascal]

Who was it that said something like "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."?

I do not see how this movie could be a step in the wrong direction. I doubt it will even get much attention, its Jesus Christ after all, just a fictional story with a fictional character to many. But to those who believe, they should know that the Bible does not teach violence towards any of our brothers and sisters, even those that do not believe.

[pinky]

I believe that the controversy that has surrounded this movie for the better part of a year now will result in its having a larger audience than it would have otherwise had. The fact that its distribution will be so large is evidence of that.

I also understand the concerns of the ADL, particularly in light of the fact that Mel Gibson rejects all the innovations of Vatican II, which includes the ecumenical outreach to other Christian faiths and also to the Jews.

However, having said that, I do not believe that Gibson is trying to do anything more (or less) than depict the Crucifixion accurately. I will be seeing the film myself, and until I do, I will reserve judgment. I am expecting it to be accurate according to the New Testament, though. Gibson's attention to detail in other works, notably Braveheart, is a good indicator of how he must have approached this film.

Will the film incite a new round of anti-Semitism? Possibly, but only because there are always those on the fringes of society who use religious justifications for their political actions. If it's not this film, it would be something else.

[pinky]

I disagree that it's because some people believe that only they are right that they become violent toward others. I think it's due more to those people being inherently insecure, and looking for someone else that they can consider lower than themselves. They may use a religion or a political position to justify their actions, but I don't think that those beliefs are necessarily the true reason.

[oldernow]

But followers of the bible have often raised the swords against those of other beliefs--most often Jews--in the name of the Bible and the Christian God. I believe this is the source of much of the fear of Jews. I admit that this is not ordained in the bible, nor it need not be representative of Christianity and Christians. Unfortunately, it has been the case many times in the past.
That is bull. It is not the Christians who often raise their swords it is the Muslims who use the sword against Jews. Why arent you pointing the finger where it belongs. Dont tell me that the Muslims treated the Jews well at one time, because that was very brief. Yet the war rages on and still you are saying Christians used the sword against Jews. Yes there was the crusades a very non Christian thing to do. But tell me has it continued? Take a good look at the History of Christianity. It has done more good to help others than any other religion. Take a look in your own backyard, you have got the wrong group of people who hate the JEWS. And for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone has the nerve to point to Christians. Who is persecuting who now? Also Osama Bin Laden and his group who when attacked America said one of his reasons was because we side with Israel. I can still remember them blaming the Jews for planing the attack. On top of all that there are people in America (not Christians) who also feel that we as a country should not help Israel, I have also heard this from the mouth of Jews who live in this country. If those who call themselves Christian and commit violence against a Jew or anyone else, I can assure you that the real Christians will stand against those who do such things.

[young again]

I know I said I was done talking about this topic. Well, sue me.

Originally posted by oldernow
Why arent you pointing the finger where it belongs.

That's funny, I didn't think this thread was about finger-pointing. I thought it was about a particular movie, made by a conservative Catholic, which may or may not (we'll find out) follow in a tradition that has historically been associated with Christian anti-Semitism. When someone posts that a movie representing, for example, a Muslim view of Zionism, is about to open on 2000 screens in the USA, I'm sure we will have plenty more to talk about.

[pinky]

While I don't like having to admit it, and I question the integrity and Christianity of those who do this, I think that there are those who call themselves Christians who have, in the recent past (for that matter, in the here and now), persecuted Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and others. If you doubt that, look at the KKK and other white supremecists. Not only do they persecute African-Americans, they also attack anyone else who doesn't subscribe to their brand of "Christianity." Their targets include Jews, Muslims, Catholics, gays, liberals, and others.

Now, I'll be the first one to tell you that these idiots are not true Christians. But when people like that fool "Reverend" Phelps maintain websites that castigate gays in the name of the Bible and their professed Christian beliefs, it certainly gives the impression to many that Christians are guilty of persecution.

Right now, in many European countries, many of which are nominally Christian or Catholic, countries, there is a rising tide of anti-Semitism. It's frightening. It's disgusting. It's wrong.

[oldernow]

Let's not forget the persecution of Christians worldwide. They are slaughtered raped mamed and tortured, put in prisons (just for being Christian) by the thousands every day. Sudan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran,,Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, India etc........

[pinky]

Certainly that happens.


But aren't Christians, almost by definition, supposed to turn the other cheek? Does the persecution of Christians by others change that?

[oldernow]

Im sorry Pinky, I dont understand the question...

[oldernow]

Right now, in many European countries, many of which are nominally Christian or Catholic, countries, there is a rising tide of anti-Semitism. It's frightening. It's disgusting. It's wrong.

Christian or Catholic countries? By that you mean the majority of population are Christian/ Catholics? If so I grew up in a very Catholic Christian Family. That is what I was born into. But by no means was I a Christian. I went to church cause that is what we did. It was not until I decided for myself to learn about God. Once I found the true meaning of Christ I was a changed person, a new self. My point is that anyone who is practicing Christianity (reading and studying the Bible) living in such a way that God wants them to, it is these people who are truly Christians. Being born into a Christian family does not mean that we are christian, That is the religion you are born into. the same goes for other religions wouldnt you say? Anyone who commits atrocities (gee, I hope I spelled that right?) is no Christian period. Any religion can claim they are a kind and peacful one but actions speak louder than words and I think it is important that one looks into what a particular religion teaches. The best source is to go to what any religion uses as their holy book.

[Earl Purple]

Originally posted by bluehorizonx10
I agree there could be some attitudes in the movie that will reflect this day and age. But the story itself cannot be changed unless we that know the Bible story to begin with would see that. And as I have read, many of the viewers so far have been proclaimed Christian's.

There are eleven books in the OT with direct prophecy to the coming of the Messiah with details of the birth, life, death, and even the resurrection of Jesus. These were foretold many many years before the actual life of Christ on earth. The story didn't deviate then, nor will it now.

One such prophecy is Isaiah 9:6-7. Quite frankly I looked in a Bible concordance and to my surprise there were two pages of scripture references in the OT directly related back to the NT on the prophecy of the Messiah. And I might add it was fulfilled to the letter when Jesus was born. We have to remember this scripture was written down for all to read for all times, and revealed to the prophets directly from God.The gospels were written by more than one and all stories were alike. The point is the story never changed. If it hasn't in all these years it won't. So we can all that know the Bible scripture, or even others who can look it up, will see whether the story is depicted correctly when we view it. That's why I trusted the Christian's who've preveiwed it to say it was correctly portrayed.

And yes, this is all written from my Christian viewpoint, believing fully that Jesus Christ was in fact God's Son and lived and died here on earth, only to resurrect with eternal life again.

yes, it's according to a Christian viewpoint. Jews are well-aware of these verses and have interpreted them differently.

[MerrySunshine]

That's a silly question, oxymoron. Of course a US President would seek alliance with a country whose policies were contrary to the US's if there were some advantage to be gained from the alliance. Yes, that goes for George Bush, too. I can't believe that question is anything but rhetorical.

Here's something from the US State Department regarding Religious Freedom around the globe: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/

If you don't want to read the entire report. Read the executive summary.

There are sites from Christians groups too that keep record of legitimate news reports of attacks on Christians, confiscation of their property, etc., but knowing how many feel that a Christian site would be biased on these matters (even though such news has appeared at one time or another in the secular media), I have opted not to post anything from them.

[oldernow]

I will post resources on another thread.

[pinky]

Originally posted by oldernow
Im sorry Pinky, I dont understand the question... To me, your post reminding us of the atrocities suffered by Christians around the world sounded as though you think those sufferings justify the same things being perpetrated by Christians against others. Since Christ advised us to turn the other cheek, there can be NO justification for crimes against other faiths.

[oldernow]

To me, your post reminding us of the atrocities suffered by Christians around the world sounded as though you think those sufferings justify the same things being perpetrated by Christians against others. Since Christ advised us to turn the other cheek, there can be NO justification for crimes against other faiths.
No Way. That is not what I am saying at all. If that was my intent that wouldn't be saying much for me as a Christian.

[pinky]

It did seem out of character. ;)