I have recently read a very intersting article (scholarly I'm afraid) which discusses the crucifixion and the Jewish role in a unique light.
Basically the author (an orthodox Jewish scholar) argues that the Jews did not support the death of Jesus out of opposition but because both he and they wnated to precipitate his Messianic role and fulfill earlier scripture and they were complicit in this.
Thus, he concludes, it was not the Jews who rejected early Christianity, but early Christianity that rejected the Jews and Jesus's original intent.
Judaism has some crack pot sects, including but not limited to Jews for Jesus, and Kaballism is one of them. It is a very apologetic sect, and it is in no way shape or form orthodox. It also barely follows the old testament and derives much of it practices and views from writings by "profits".
Actually, it reveals a prideful lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Amazing how "open minded" people, who demand tolerance of everything, see it fit to mock and hate Christians.
Sorry to sound offensive, but can you blame those "open minded" people for thinking that way? I can't. I sympathize with them. Arguably, many of the most visible elements of Christianity are some of its most extreme, most hypocritical, and most abhorrent: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Bob Jones, and Fred Phelps are examples that immediately come to mind. And then there's the Creationists, but I think that issue's been done to death here.
As a Christian myself, I'm deeply ashamed at how many, many people who call themselves "Christians" seem to think they're doing the world a favor by trying to shove their own view of God and Christ down other people's throats, or by arrogantly trying to position themselves on a pedestal, being the only people who know and can ever know, the mind or will of God. Shame on them for reducing a great and truly beautiful religious tradition into a ridiculous laughingstock. Being subjected to Christian hate and mocking myself over my Catholicism, I think that a lot of the people who are really being prideful are Christians themselves.
I always feel that I need to apologize to people like Kickaha. Christianity isn't about arrogantly trumpeting your own horn about how close to God you are. It's about humility and compassion.
Sorry to sound offensive, but can you blame those "open minded" people for thinking that way? I can't. I sympathize with them. Arguably, many of the most visible elements of Christianity are some of its most extreme, most hypocritical, and most abhorrent: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Bob Jones, and Fred Phelps are examples that immediately come to mind. And then there's the Creationists, but I think that issue's been done to death here...
I always feel that I need to apologize to people like Kickaha. Christianity isn't about arrogantly trumpeting your own horn about how close to God you are. It's about humility and compassion.
As painful as it is to recognize, you are correct... FALWELL, et al, have been the "face" of Christianity for some time now. The problem is not them... it is the fact that people cannot put a "Christian" label to people next door who claim to be Christians. I never became a Christian because of Falwell and crew- it was based on average people around me who demonstrated what their faith meant to them. Sadly, most Christians are twice-a-week Christians at best. We have ceded our role as those who "define" what a Christian in this culture means. Phelps is no Christian, I know that, but the masses do not.
As far as apologizing, I will not apologize for someone else's psychological issue. Falwell and Robertson have their apologists. I truly regret that the sum total of someone's views of what a Christian IS has been dictated by TBN or CBN. Such is the power of the media. I am just sick of people who say "you can't stereotype others" and then lump ALL Christ Followers in with people like Falwell and crew. I am doing my best to see each person as an individual, with individual beliefs and morals. I'm tired of not receiving the same courtesy from the "anti-Christiandom" crowd.
Christians walk a fine line between evangelism and being overbearing. We are supposed to bring people to know Christ through love... not fire and brimstone. I will not back off from the demand that people see me, rather than who they THINK I am based on the societal label of "Christian"
Seems that the Bible/Gospels/History itself has gone through numerous (and constant) "re-writes" themselves...more than this movie ever had. Making it less coherent day by day.
Great discussion here. Still think Jesus was just a magnetic orator who attracted alot of attention with his beliefs and spirituality (his conciousness too...something people then didn't have much of at the time). When he got too popular/powerful the other spritual and political leaders needed to oust the poor fellow. The masses let them...that's where the "why have you sussed me out?" phrase comes from.
I'm going to compare Mel's movie with Monty's "Life of Brian". Always look on the bright side of life...
Do you agree that society should condemn or discourage anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc wherever it exists?
Only if it is obvious that anti-semitism, racism or sexism is clearly present. From what I have heard from all parties thus far, I suspect it is not. I won't know for sure until I see it. A lot of people in this country equate things that are contrary to their basic point of view as "against them", instead of being just another point of view. I think that's what's happening here. There's a differnce between a movie being "contrary to Jewish belief" and being "anti-Jewish". Some people don't get that distinction.
Anti-semitism implies hatred and a will to do harm to Jews. ADM themselves state they don't contend Gibson is anti-semitic... this (indirectly) tends to support my conclusion. Would a man who is not thought to be anti-semitic, really be likely to make a movie that blatantly IS anti-semitic? Or is this really an uproar over one man's interpretation (because that's all it is)? I seriously doubt there is anything in this movie that would move a rational-minded person to be "swayed against all Jews".
Those who can easily be swayed by a movie to act against an entire race of people, will be easily swayed in some other way if they don't see the movie. You can't stop people who are "looking for an excuse" to find their excuse. Sad but true. The rest of us shouldn't be shamed or censored out of seeing this movie because some whack-job might get the idea to go paint a swastika on an overpass. This is America. The movie needs to be seen by people of all stripes so they can make up their own minds and a real consensus reached.
Quote:
It's their policy: "ADL believes that it can best promote change and raise awareness through making our voice heard." Individual instances are certainly worthy of attention, but this is far greater than just a film. People have called it - and critics may even agree- quite possibly the greatest evangelizing tool ever.
And in so far as it can actually be shown to be blatantly anti-semitic, then I'm all for the ADL speaking out loud and clear. The thing that is kind of peculiar (and the turn this thread has taken bears it out), is that now all of a sudden everyone is saying "This movie is based on the book of John, and the book of John isn't as accurate as the other books. That's bad, mmmm-kay?" [By extension] it seems that the ADM and other groups apparently also think the Book of John is anti-semitic. Let me explain...
....since I was a little kid attending (standard non-Gibsonian Catholic services), I have heard the story of how the Jewish priests resented Christ (because he was bad-mouthing their greed and thus their hypocrisy basically), and how eventually, the decision came to the Romans who said "so before you we have Jesus -- a man who has broken no Roman Law that we know of -- and Barabas... a man who has committed many crimes. Who shall we send to death?"
"...and the Jews in the crowd shouted for Christ and not Barabas." And in the story, the Roman governor WAS sort of dismayed. He didn't really CARE which one he put to death -- or so the story seems to imply -- but he doesn't know why they are willing to overlook an obvious criminal in order that Christ be sent to an "official death". In the end, the crowd gets their hands on Barabas (literally I think) and so they get their cake and eat it too... but all this is not new.
This whole storyline and the preaching of it by MANY churches (not just the Catholic church) is no state secret. Preachers and Priests and Ministers have been "shouting it from the Mountain top" since the days of Colonial times. So it seems to me, all the scenes in the movie the ADM is angry about... are nothing more than the cinematic (and therefore more dramatic because it's visual) retelling of the same exact story noted above. A story many of us have heard dozens and dozens of times over the years. Surely they must've have heard something of it as well?
So if they really believe this interpretation is so off-base and dangerous and anti-semitic... why have they never said anything about it before in the mass media?
I think their problem is not a movie about John's interpretation of events leading to Christ's death, it's about the interpretation itself and only now when it's in the spotlight do they make a big deal about it. Perhaps because in other times, when there was no controversial movie, no one would listen to them, or the Jewish leaders themselves might be looked down upon for bad-mouthing other religions? Just a thought. This movie has given them a sort of distraction to say what -- perhaps -- they've wanted to say all the time, and so it appears to many that "they're just mad about the movie", when what they really don't like is the story. A story which Gibson certainly didn't invent.
From everything I have read and heard about this movie, Gibson is not "making anything up"... he's taking this story straight from the same book (John) we Christians have had read to us by our church leaders for decades and decades. The part about Satan being incarnate (if true) would be the only exception to this AFAICT, and the only one that would be really distasteful, absent something visual in the movie (not spoken) that I haven't yet seen.
Segovius
I understand where you're coming from, in terms of not looking upon Jesus as being truly human, when analysis of his sacrifice is the topic at hand. I think what most Christians believe (for whatever reason), is that Jesus -- when it came to his very life being taken and not just being socially shunned -- also had moments of doubt. He believed he was special in some way relating to God, but he wasn't sure, and so the possibiilty existed in his mind that perhaps he was just throwing his life away. Enduring great social anger and hostility, and great pain... for nothing, essentially.
It is taught to many Christians that while he is hanging on the cross but still alive, he loses faith for a moment and believes he has done this horrible thing to himself, only to endure a bitter human death. That God is not coming to his aid. That is sort of the reason why we believe the magnitude of the sacrifice was as it was. We don't believe that in the hours leading up to his death he was saying to himself "hey no sweat, I'll suffer for a few hours and then everything will be Roses". He was taking a big chance in his own mind, and ultimately that was his faith in God that he showed when he went through with it...
...again not entirely satisfying from a "pure logic" point of view, but just trying to convey why many Christians consider Christ's sacrifice to have been every bit as mentally (and not just physically) trying as those of others who have sacrificed themselves since.
Judaism has some crack pot sects, including but not limited to Jews for Jesus, and Kaballism is one of them. It is a very apologetic sect, and it is in no way shape or form orthodox. It also barely follows the old testament and derives much of it practices and views from writings by "profits".
Kabalism is a mystical off shoot of Judaism . . . but to say that it in no way is orthodox is wrong . . . to say that it barely follows the OT is wrong.
There are some variants of Kabalism that are popular and tend towards california style mumbo jumbo spiritualism . . . these are in no way Kabalism.
It should be seen as a form of intense study, a kind of literary criticism of the torah and talmud . . . but is backed by some very serious scholars and spiritual Jews . . . look at Gershem Scholem's book Jewish Mysticism it is a good read.
From what I've read, whoever wrote the Gospels borrowed liberally from the Old Testament in order to give Jesus a kind of credibility that would come from linking him to the past - in that case, David. But that also brings into serious question whether Jesus actually said that, or it was just added in for good measure.
There is an annotated version of the Bible that provides an interpretation something like this (it has been over 20 years since I've last done any study):
The psalms are a common form of prayer for the people of Jesus' community (Jews). Psalm 22 does begin with an attitude of despair, but eventually turns that around and expresses a fervent hope and belief in God.
This is an interpretation by Catholic scholars (from the "Jerusalem Bible" which, as I recall, is just the name given to an annotated, modern translation based on many sources and not claimed to be any more valid than any other translation/compilation). This is not a widely held interpretation and any time I have brought it up to Protestant friends, they have dismissed it with, "No I don't accept that. I have my own personal interpretation."
?is but from what i have read, Clovis converted, probably under the influence of his wife, and his subjects were neither Catholic nor Arians . . .
Precisely, the Franks were still polytheists till then.
When writing about the Christian subjects of Clovis, it was of course about the Gallo-Romans. In other barbarian kingdoms there were two main groups: the ruling and warrying élite of the either Arianist or still pagan barbarians, and the conquered Roman (or Romanised) Christian population, including whatever remained of the literate élite.
In the Regnum Francorum, these two groups found it easier to mingle due to the conversion of Clovis and his warriors.
Quote:
?until he converted with 3000 of his subjects also converting. Legend has it that he converted after appealing to God before a battle on a whim . . and then winning the battle decisively
That was the battle of Tobliac.
Quote:
Charlemagne (Charles Martel, Charles teh 1)
Charles Martel and Charlemagne were two distinct, abeit related, characters, the first was the uncle of the second, if my memory is correct.
Quote:
?was not a Merovingian but was the second (or third . . . I can't remember right off hand) King of the Carrolingian line (Pippin=1st)
Of course he was not a Merovingian. He succeeded his father, Pepin the Short, who was the first Carolingian king. The Carolingians continued and strengthened the partnership of the Frankish kingdom the Roman Church, which began under the Merovingian Clovis.
Quote:
He gets the blame for both Catholicizing and unifying Europe through a very smart reorganization of the Church structure with regardsto how it ministered and how it maintained its different parishes and educated its parishioners, he demanded a standard and put in place an elaborate network which included monesteries and forced them to abide by the standard which he worked out with the Church . . .
[?]
. . . it of course all broke down when his three sons missmanaged the regions that he left them and then it just further slid into feudalism . . . but anyway . . . blame Charlemagne . . tha's what I always say
The ancient notion of the state, the Res publica (public thing) was rotting away as the Roman Empire itself became more militarised and autocratic, not to mention decadent.
For the Frankish chieftains, there was no difference between sovereignity and property, and so the kingdom was treated like a personal possession to be carved up between heirs after the king's death (which was followed by interencine warfare till a new winner would emerge). Allegiance was also personal, to the king rather than to the kingdom, which naturally led to the feudal system. It took till the end of the Middle-Ages till one could see once again a distinction between the state and the estate.
While Charlemagne was strong enough to keep his kingdom united, the system which he fostered did not favour unity. His death brought an end to the united Frankish kingdom which was finalised by the treaty of Verdun of 843, establishing a kingdom of Francia Orientalis (later the kingdom of Germany, which melted away in small fiefdoms), Lotharingia (later, the duchy of Lorraine), and Francia Occidentalis (which became the kingdom of France).
Quote:
The Ecclesiastical state that you mentioned . .. was that the confederation of city states that remained loyal to the pope during the struggles between the Pope and (I think) Henry2 (German Emperor- or am I thnking of his father . . . it all blurs)?
The ecclesiatical state was the Italian fief which the Popes ruled as a sovereign and most temporal princes. It was founded in 756 and lasted till 1870.
I'm tired of not receiving the same courtesy from the "anti-Christiandom" crowd...Christians walk a fine line between evangelism and being overbearing. We are supposed to bring people to know Christ through love... not fire and brimstone. I will not back off from the demand that people see me, rather than who they THINK I am based on the societal label of "Christian"
And the reason why the "anti-Christendom" crowd lump the good Christians in with the bad is because WE lump the good non-Christians in with the bad. Turnabout is fair play. I've known many, Muslims, Hindus, Lesbians, Gays, etc. who were inifinitely more socially compassionate and humble than a lot of the Christians I've met in my life. Are they all going to Hell, alongside all of those mass murderers and child molestors, because they're not "Christian"? (As opposed to Christians who are openly racist and sexist who are "supposed" to go to Heaven?) I don't believe that for a second.
I don't mind being labelled a Christian -- I welcome it. And I try to challenge people's traditional views of Christianity, just as how I try to change traditional views within other Christians of ALL other Christians as unsaved heathens who are condemned by default.
Yes, you're right. Use love to bring the message of Christ to people who don't know about it. That's great. It sure beats bashing people over the head with Scripture thinking that they'll instantly convert.
From everything I have read and heard about this movie, Gibson is not "making anything up"... he's taking this story straight from the same book (John) we Christians have had read to us by our church leaders for decades and decades. The part about Satan being incarnate (if true) would be the only exception to this AFAICT, and the only one that would be really distasteful, absent something visual in the movie (not spoken) that I haven't yet seen.
Q. ADL has said the film could fuel anti-Semitism. How so?
A. We fear the consequences of this film. There will be many people who are not so familiar with the Gospel narratives and might believe that everything they see on the film derives directly from the New Testament. Much of what is on the screen is Mr. Gibson's artistic vision and finds its genesis in extra-Biblical sources. We are also concerned about those who already are disposed unfavorably toward Jews and will use this to fan the flames of hatred.
Q. Is the film faithful to the Bible and accepted Christian teachings?
A. The script is based upon the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and John. But in order to weave together the story, these different texts must be harmonized and holes in the story must be filled in. The Biblical text tries to project a story of faith, but some of the narratives also reflect the growing schism between the Church and the Jewish people. Modern scholars have taught that the Gospel narratives must be taught responsibly. Since the Second Vatican Council of the early 1960's the Catholic Church has taught that the Jews of Jesus' time, as well as the Jews of today cannot be held responsible for the death of Jesus.
Q. Who else shares ADL's objections?
A. The concerns are shared by responsible Catholic, Protestant and Jewish theologians, clergy and citizens. A committee of nine Jewish and Catholic scholars studied an early screenplay and unanimously found it to be historically inaccurate, unfaithful to the gospel narratives and to project a uniformly negative picture of Jews. Mr. Gibson and his Icon Productions were aware of and approved of the script study until they received its conclusions.
\
Guess you didn't actually read the ADL's objections to the film.
And the reason why the "anti-Christendom" crowd lump the good Christians in with the bad is because WE lump the good non-Christians in with the bad. Turnabout is fair play. I've known many, Muslims, Hindus, Lesbians, Gays, etc. who were inifinitely more socially compassionate and humble than a lot of the Christians I've met in my life. Are they all going to Hell, alongside all of those mass murderers and child molestors, because they're not "Christian"? (As opposed to Christians who are openly racist and sexist who are "supposed" to go to Heaven?) I don't believe that for a second.
I don't mind being labelled a Christian -- I welcome it. And I try to challenge people's traditional views of Christianity, just as how I try to change traditional views within other Christians of ALL other Christians as unsaved heathens who are condemned by default.
Yes, you're right. Use love to bring the message of Christ to people who don't know about it. That's great. It sure beats bashing people over the head with Scripture thinking that they'll instantly convert.
*Applause*
Thank you, rampancy, that addresses it perfectly. The all-or-nothing exists on both sides of the fence(s), and anyone on any side who has a problem seeing that generally could be classified as one of the offenders. \
Only if it is obvious that anti-semitism, racism or sexism is clearly present. From what I have heard from all parties thus far, I suspect it is not. I won't know for sure until I see it.
There's a broader context here though, and I think this anti-Semitism issue has to be seen in light of that context.
1. Most historians believe that it is implausible that Jews had much influence over the Romans to carry out an execution.
2. Although the Bible portrays it that way, it is likely that the authors may have changed the events a bit in order to make the story more palatable to Romans, as well as to fight an internal battle with some Jewish leadership at the time.
3. Gibson's movie, by some accounts, goes even further than the Gospels in blaming the Jews for the crucifixion. (Although I've read that some of the scenes have been removed for the final cut.)
4. Some Christians throughout history have used anti-Jewish themes in the Gospels to rile up anti-Semitism, including the Holocaust.
Shawnj: I DID read many of the FAQ from the ADL site. I will say this: just because they put nine priests and Jewish scholars together who agreed they didn't like it, means little to me. I have conversely heard other priests speak of it and say that they are not sure what all the fuss is about. There is clearly not a big push from the Catholic church, condemning this movie as yet, so to imply otherwise (even indirectly) is disingenuous on the part of the ADL.
Also, their argument in your quoted text boils down to: "some people are ignorant of the gospels, and therefore may be adversely affected by this film and do something bad".
That is about the most flawed piece of logic I've seen in this whole debate, quite frankly.
As for Vatican II, it has oft been misquoted with regards to this movie though it seems the ADL is nearly on-point. The Council did NOT say that "Jews had nothing to do with it" (as many are claiming). They said that modern-day Jews should not be held responsible for it in any way (basically). It's analogous to those who are the descendants of slave owners in this country, are not to be blamed for their fore-fathers' mistakes. And I agree with that whole-heartedly.
In the end, what this whole thing boils down to, is that there is basically no irrefutable evidence either way. You can either believe Christ was handed over by the Jewish high priests and their followers, or you can believe the Romans did the whole deal. You cannot disprove either theory. The fact that one sheds an ill light on some Jews 2000 years ago doesn't make it "bad". It's another interpretation of something that frankly, none of us have the "inside line" on.
I think another problem the ADL has with this movie is really... how gory it is. And I imagine that any crucifixion was a gory, awful scene. And so of course if there are any Jews standing by as it happens (almost IMPOSSIBLE that there weren't), then the ADL will take that as "a statement that Jews are bloodthirsty", which I think is also disingenuous. Even a fool knows that this story took place thousands of years ago, and so you cannot by logical extension say that what one group was then, they must also be now.
Again, those who look for ignorant excuses to hate will find them. Those who think for themselves will either see this movie and like or dislike it, but not "hate Jews" because of it either way.
3. Gibson's movie, by some accounts, goes even further than the Gospels in blaming the Jews for the crucifixion. (Although I've read that some of the scenes have been removed for the final cut.)
For the last time, I have seen the film. The "Blood Curse" scene was still in at that point. (It's since been removed.)
Even with the crowd shouting "His blood be on us, and our children", Gibson's movie goes NO FURTHER than what is in the Gospels. That phrase is in there and that is the only instance in the movie that can be considered really controversial on the anti-Semitic issue, and now it's no longer there.
The accounts you allude to are flat out wrong. I look forward to this thread on Wednesday, when everything's in plain sight.
\\I think another problem the ADL has with this movie is really... how gory it is. And I imagine that any crucifixion was a gory, awful scene. And so of course if there are any Jews standing by as it happens (almost IMPOSSIBLE that there weren't), then the ADL will take that as "a statement that Jews are bloodthirsty", which I think is also disingenuous. Even a fool knows that this story took place thousands of years ago, and so you cannot by logical extension say that what one group was then, they must also be now.
What's the connection between Jews being under ruthless Roman occupation and being unable to do anything about it - as one of their own Rabbi's is crucified (one among thousands of Jews crucified by, and otherwise murdered by the Roman death machine) and Jews being Blood thirsty? Was Jesus's mother and disciples blood thirsty as well for having done nothing but watch Jesus supposedly die at that Roman cross? I find your line of argument extremely sly and provocative. In fact, I would find it blood libelous!! <insert epithet>
That is about the most flawed piece of logic I've seen in this whole debate, quite frankly.
As for Vatican II, it has oft been misquoted with regards to this movie though it seems the ADL is nearly on-point. The Council did NOT say that "Jews had nothing to do with it" (as many are claiming). They said that modern-day Jews should not be held responsible for it in any way (basically).
Again, those who look for ignorant excuses to hate will find them. Those who think for themselves will either see this movie and like or dislike it, but not "hate Jews" because of it either way.
I think I have to agree with Moogs on this one. Sure, I can definitely sympathize with those who are concerned about how the movie can come across as anti-Semetic, but in all honesty, how could anyone make a movie about The Passion without making it appear that it could be anti-Semetic? Like with the New Testament itself, anyone with the desire could make this film out to be anti-Semetic propaganda, and no doubt more than a few people will. But if they do, it's their problem for thinking that.
Geez. What next? Is the New Testament itself going to be outlawed for appearing to be anti-Semetic?
Maybe I've being overly idealistic, but I too think that the majority of the people who will be watching this movie (moderate, mainstream Christians) will be intelligent enough to know that this is simply one man's interpretation of what happened in Scripture. I really don't think that watching this movie will induce the masses to rush out of the theatre (literally) screaming bloody murder.
Oh, and one more thing: I looked up the issue of Jews being responsible for the death of Christ in my handy-dandy Catechism, and here's what I found. Moogs, I guess you'd be interested in this:
(Part One, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 597)
Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus' death
The historical complexity of Jesus' trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the partcipants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the Apostles' call to conversion after Pentacost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter, in following suit, both accept "the ignorance" of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still, less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd's cry: "His blood be on us and our children!" a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. As the church declared at the Second Vatican Council:
"...Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion...The Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture."
Geez. What next? Is the New Testament itself going to be outlawed for appearing to be anti-Semetic?
Maybe I've being overly idealistic, but I too think that the majority of the people who will be watching this movie (moderate, mainstream Christians) will be intelligent enough to know that this is simply one man's interpretation of what happened in Scripture. I really don't think that watching this movie will induce the masses to rush out of the theatre (literally) screaming bloody murder. [/i]
Yeah, you'd definitely have to be a moron to come away with anti-Semitic feelings after reading or seeing a movie about the Gospels. Unfortunately, it's happened, and I understand why people are concerned. Many people believe the way the Bible portrays the Jews' responsibility for Jesus' death is at the root of anti-Semitism throughout history.
Apparently, the movie been changed some, and Frank777 is saying the blood curse was taken out, which is probably a good thing, because if there's any specific verse that boils down the whole thing, that's probably it. BTW, that's another great example of how the whole anti-Jew angle was stuck in the Gospels after the fact for effect. Why would a mob curse themselves?
But I think you're right about saying "what's next, the New Testament?" It's just an unfortunate reality that it's a part of Christianity. I just think people want the issue dealt with very carefully. Wasn't it Billy Graham who said that this is the greatest opportunity for evangelism or something like that? I read an estimate that said more people would probably see this movie than all of the Passion plays ever, combined. And then considering the already-present anti-Israel feelings out there, and you have concerns.
Quote:
"...Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion...The Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture."
And why do you think they felt it necessary to say that, if there's really no problem? To me, the fact that this statement was made underscores the concerns about the issue, it doesn't mitigate them. No one thinks a bunch of Bishops from the Vatican, or average Catholics serious enough to think about Vatican II, are going to go out and kill Jews or something. It's the people who consider themselves Christian but aren't exactly tuned into these kinds of niceities that might be a concern.
The second vatican council is somewhat controversial and lead to the splinter group of which gibson (and his father) are part.
Vatican II was hardly unique in that regard. Every major Ecumenical Council has resulted in the creation of a splinter group which rejects the new positions of the church as being antithetical to the faith. The most numerous of these groups is the general collection of folks who have themselves split ad naseum and whom are grouped under the label "Protestant."
If I recall correctly, Gibson's particular sect didn't split off after Vatican II, but after Vatican I. But Gibson has espoused some belief in Papal Infallibility, which was the main issue leading to the Vatican I schism. So he's more of an anti-Vat 2 guy who hangs with anti-Vat 1 folks. He may qualify as a full-blown sede vacantist.
[B]The divinity of Christ evolved from the Gospel of Mark through the Gospel of John. Mark's Gospel (the first one written that is in the New Testament) was written for the Jewish community. The same can be said for Matthew's Gospel. Luke on the other hand was writing to both Jews and Gentiles while John wrote prodimenantly for the Gentiles. In the Gospel of John we find the virgin birth and the resurrection, neither of which are in Mark's Gospel.
Actually, it goes back farther than that. The question at hand is the moment of diefication of Jesus, when Jesus became Christ.
In Paul's writings, the revelation of Jesus' divine nature was the ressurrection. Christ's overcoming of death was the manifestation of his divine nature.
Mark moved this point forward, to the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, during which the dove (an image of God, and now the image of the Paraclete) sets down upon Christ as God speaks of his devotion to his son. Matthew, being drawn from Marcan material, regurgitates this timeline.
Luke moves the point forward again, to the divine conception of Christ (not to be confused with the Immaculate Conception, which refers to Mary, not Jesus). Jesus in Luke is born and lives his entire life with the imprimatur of divinity upon him (as witnessed by his reception in the temple).
John, in an attempt to make the Gospel more palatable to the Roman Empire (as did Luke), and to confront the charges of the Gnostics, the first heretics of the church, makes Christ preexistent in his narrative, the Word which was made Flesh. Jesus was not only divine from the point of conception to the writer of John, he was divine from the beginning of time.
This emergence of Jesus from man who arose to Godhood, who was bestowed Godhood, who was born in Godhood to Jesus who was pre-existent as God was the chief Christological development of the first Christian century. From the point of John forward, the preexistent God-Christ was the majoritarian, orthodox view, consented to by the Church universal. The letters of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries conform to the Johannine view.
It is inaccurate to say that the divinity of Jesus as a preexisting God is an addition accrued in the Constantinian period. The entire historical record speaks against this point (read the writing of the Doctors and Fathers).
After John, Christological concerns moved to more interesting questions like what the mixture of divinity and man there was in Christ and how the two were interrelated.
I'm just starting to read about this historical Jesus stuff, but I've also read that the Gospels were at least partially targeted at Romans, and so blaming it on them wouldn't go over so well. So the role of the Romans in the crucifixion was downplayed, and the role of the Jews was played up: Herod and the Jews were the real bad guys, and Pilate was just a nice guy who did what the Jews wanted. Of course, that's probably utter nonsense and really doesn't make sense in historical context.
Yeah, you can't read the Gospels as being anywhere near to what we consider a history text. The political needs of the early church were reflected in the tone and tenor of the documents, from Pauls' "zeal-of-the-convert" anti-Semitism to Matthews' attempts to woo Jews to Jesus by casting him in a very Moses-style role, with his flight to Egypt, his 40 days in the desert, etc.
Comments
Originally posted by segovius
I have recently read a very intersting article (scholarly I'm afraid) which discusses the crucifixion and the Jewish role in a unique light.
Basically the author (an orthodox Jewish scholar) argues that the Jews did not support the death of Jesus out of opposition but because both he and they wnated to precipitate his Messianic role and fulfill earlier scripture and they were complicit in this.
Thus, he concludes, it was not the Jews who rejected early Christianity, but early Christianity that rejected the Jews and Jesus's original intent.
Linky
Scoff. Do you know what Kaballism is?
Judaism has some crack pot sects, including but not limited to Jews for Jesus, and Kaballism is one of them. It is a very apologetic sect, and it is in no way shape or form orthodox. It also barely follows the old testament and derives much of it practices and views from writings by "profits".
Originally posted by Jubelum
Actually, it reveals a prideful lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Amazing how "open minded" people, who demand tolerance of everything, see it fit to mock and hate Christians.
Sorry to sound offensive, but can you blame those "open minded" people for thinking that way? I can't. I sympathize with them. Arguably, many of the most visible elements of Christianity are some of its most extreme, most hypocritical, and most abhorrent: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Bob Jones, and Fred Phelps are examples that immediately come to mind. And then there's the Creationists, but I think that issue's been done to death here.
As a Christian myself, I'm deeply ashamed at how many, many people who call themselves "Christians" seem to think they're doing the world a favor by trying to shove their own view of God and Christ down other people's throats, or by arrogantly trying to position themselves on a pedestal, being the only people who know and can ever know, the mind or will of God. Shame on them for reducing a great and truly beautiful religious tradition into a ridiculous laughingstock. Being subjected to Christian hate and mocking myself over my Catholicism, I think that a lot of the people who are really being prideful are Christians themselves.
I always feel that I need to apologize to people like Kickaha. Christianity isn't about arrogantly trumpeting your own horn about how close to God you are. It's about humility and compassion.
Originally posted by rampancy
Sorry to sound offensive, but can you blame those "open minded" people for thinking that way? I can't. I sympathize with them. Arguably, many of the most visible elements of Christianity are some of its most extreme, most hypocritical, and most abhorrent: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Bob Jones, and Fred Phelps are examples that immediately come to mind. And then there's the Creationists, but I think that issue's been done to death here...
I always feel that I need to apologize to people like Kickaha. Christianity isn't about arrogantly trumpeting your own horn about how close to God you are. It's about humility and compassion.
As painful as it is to recognize, you are correct... FALWELL, et al, have been the "face" of Christianity for some time now. The problem is not them... it is the fact that people cannot put a "Christian" label to people next door who claim to be Christians. I never became a Christian because of Falwell and crew- it was based on average people around me who demonstrated what their faith meant to them. Sadly, most Christians are twice-a-week Christians at best. We have ceded our role as those who "define" what a Christian in this culture means. Phelps is no Christian, I know that, but the masses do not.
As far as apologizing, I will not apologize for someone else's psychological issue. Falwell and Robertson have their apologists. I truly regret that the sum total of someone's views of what a Christian IS has been dictated by TBN or CBN. Such is the power of the media. I am just sick of people who say "you can't stereotype others" and then lump ALL Christ Followers in with people like Falwell and crew. I am doing my best to see each person as an individual, with individual beliefs and morals. I'm tired of not receiving the same courtesy from the "anti-Christiandom" crowd.
Christians walk a fine line between evangelism and being overbearing. We are supposed to bring people to know Christ through love... not fire and brimstone. I will not back off from the demand that people see me, rather than who they THINK I am based on the societal label of "Christian"
</soapbox>
Great discussion here. Still think Jesus was just a magnetic orator who attracted alot of attention with his beliefs and spirituality (his conciousness too...something people then didn't have much of at the time). When he got too popular/powerful the other spritual and political leaders needed to oust the poor fellow. The masses let them...that's where the "why have you sussed me out?" phrase comes from.
I'm going to compare Mel's movie with Monty's "Life of Brian". Always look on the bright side of life...
My opinion...carry on...
Do you agree that society should condemn or discourage anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc wherever it exists?
Only if it is obvious that anti-semitism, racism or sexism is clearly present. From what I have heard from all parties thus far, I suspect it is not. I won't know for sure until I see it. A lot of people in this country equate things that are contrary to their basic point of view as "against them", instead of being just another point of view. I think that's what's happening here. There's a differnce between a movie being "contrary to Jewish belief" and being "anti-Jewish". Some people don't get that distinction.
Anti-semitism implies hatred and a will to do harm to Jews. ADM themselves state they don't contend Gibson is anti-semitic... this (indirectly) tends to support my conclusion. Would a man who is not thought to be anti-semitic, really be likely to make a movie that blatantly IS anti-semitic? Or is this really an uproar over one man's interpretation (because that's all it is)? I seriously doubt there is anything in this movie that would move a rational-minded person to be "swayed against all Jews".
Those who can easily be swayed by a movie to act against an entire race of people, will be easily swayed in some other way if they don't see the movie. You can't stop people who are "looking for an excuse" to find their excuse. Sad but true. The rest of us shouldn't be shamed or censored out of seeing this movie because some whack-job might get the idea to go paint a swastika on an overpass. This is America. The movie needs to be seen by people of all stripes so they can make up their own minds and a real consensus reached.
It's their policy: "ADL believes that it can best promote change and raise awareness through making our voice heard." Individual instances are certainly worthy of attention, but this is far greater than just a film. People have called it - and critics may even agree- quite possibly the greatest evangelizing tool ever.
And in so far as it can actually be shown to be blatantly anti-semitic, then I'm all for the ADL speaking out loud and clear. The thing that is kind of peculiar (and the turn this thread has taken bears it out), is that now all of a sudden everyone is saying "This movie is based on the book of John, and the book of John isn't as accurate as the other books. That's bad, mmmm-kay?" [By extension] it seems that the ADM and other groups apparently also think the Book of John is anti-semitic. Let me explain...
....since I was a little kid attending (standard non-Gibsonian Catholic services), I have heard the story of how the Jewish priests resented Christ (because he was bad-mouthing their greed and thus their hypocrisy basically), and how eventually, the decision came to the Romans who said "so before you we have Jesus -- a man who has broken no Roman Law that we know of -- and Barabas... a man who has committed many crimes. Who shall we send to death?"
"...and the Jews in the crowd shouted for Christ and not Barabas." And in the story, the Roman governor WAS sort of dismayed. He didn't really CARE which one he put to death -- or so the story seems to imply -- but he doesn't know why they are willing to overlook an obvious criminal in order that Christ be sent to an "official death". In the end, the crowd gets their hands on Barabas (literally I think) and so they get their cake and eat it too... but all this is not new.
This whole storyline and the preaching of it by MANY churches (not just the Catholic church) is no state secret. Preachers and Priests and Ministers have been "shouting it from the Mountain top" since the days of Colonial times. So it seems to me, all the scenes in the movie the ADM is angry about... are nothing more than the cinematic (and therefore more dramatic because it's visual) retelling of the same exact story noted above. A story many of us have heard dozens and dozens of times over the years. Surely they must've have heard something of it as well?
So if they really believe this interpretation is so off-base and dangerous and anti-semitic... why have they never said anything about it before in the mass media?
I think their problem is not a movie about John's interpretation of events leading to Christ's death, it's about the interpretation itself and only now when it's in the spotlight do they make a big deal about it. Perhaps because in other times, when there was no controversial movie, no one would listen to them, or the Jewish leaders themselves might be looked down upon for bad-mouthing other religions? Just a thought. This movie has given them a sort of distraction to say what -- perhaps -- they've wanted to say all the time, and so it appears to many that "they're just mad about the movie", when what they really don't like is the story. A story which Gibson certainly didn't invent.
From everything I have read and heard about this movie, Gibson is not "making anything up"... he's taking this story straight from the same book (John) we Christians have had read to us by our church leaders for decades and decades. The part about Satan being incarnate (if true) would be the only exception to this AFAICT, and the only one that would be really distasteful, absent something visual in the movie (not spoken) that I haven't yet seen.
Segovius
I understand where you're coming from, in terms of not looking upon Jesus as being truly human, when analysis of his sacrifice is the topic at hand. I think what most Christians believe (for whatever reason), is that Jesus -- when it came to his very life being taken and not just being socially shunned -- also had moments of doubt. He believed he was special in some way relating to God, but he wasn't sure, and so the possibiilty existed in his mind that perhaps he was just throwing his life away. Enduring great social anger and hostility, and great pain... for nothing, essentially.
It is taught to many Christians that while he is hanging on the cross but still alive, he loses faith for a moment and believes he has done this horrible thing to himself, only to endure a bitter human death. That God is not coming to his aid. That is sort of the reason why we believe the magnitude of the sacrifice was as it was. We don't believe that in the hours leading up to his death he was saying to himself "hey no sweat, I'll suffer for a few hours and then everything will be Roses". He was taking a big chance in his own mind, and ultimately that was his faith in God that he showed when he went through with it...
...again not entirely satisfying from a "pure logic" point of view, but just trying to convey why many Christians consider Christ's sacrifice to have been every bit as mentally (and not just physically) trying as those of others who have sacrificed themselves since.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Scoff. Do you know what Kaballism is?
Judaism has some crack pot sects, including but not limited to Jews for Jesus, and Kaballism is one of them. It is a very apologetic sect, and it is in no way shape or form orthodox. It also barely follows the old testament and derives much of it practices and views from writings by "profits".
Kabalism is a mystical off shoot of Judaism . . . but to say that it in no way is orthodox is wrong . . . to say that it barely follows the OT is wrong.
There are some variants of Kabalism that are popular and tend towards california style mumbo jumbo spiritualism . . . these are in no way Kabalism.
It should be seen as a form of intense study, a kind of literary criticism of the torah and talmud . . . but is backed by some very serious scholars and spiritual Jews . . . look at Gershem Scholem's book Jewish Mysticism it is a good read.
[EDIT: spelled alternatively: Kabbalism, Cabalism]
Originally posted by BRussell
From what I've read, whoever wrote the Gospels borrowed liberally from the Old Testament in order to give Jesus a kind of credibility that would come from linking him to the past - in that case, David. But that also brings into serious question whether Jesus actually said that, or it was just added in for good measure.
There is an annotated version of the Bible that provides an interpretation something like this (it has been over 20 years since I've last done any study):
The psalms are a common form of prayer for the people of Jesus' community (Jews). Psalm 22 does begin with an attitude of despair, but eventually turns that around and expresses a fervent hope and belief in God.
This is an interpretation by Catholic scholars (from the "Jerusalem Bible" which, as I recall, is just the name given to an annotated, modern translation based on many sources and not claimed to be any more valid than any other translation/compilation). This is not a widely held interpretation and any time I have brought it up to Protestant friends, they have dismissed it with, "No I don't accept that. I have my own personal interpretation."
Originally posted by pfflam
I'm not sure what your source
Boring standard history books.
?is but from what i have read, Clovis converted, probably under the influence of his wife, and his subjects were neither Catholic nor Arians . . .
Precisely, the Franks were still polytheists till then.
When writing about the Christian subjects of Clovis, it was of course about the Gallo-Romans. In other barbarian kingdoms there were two main groups: the ruling and warrying élite of the either Arianist or still pagan barbarians, and the conquered Roman (or Romanised) Christian population, including whatever remained of the literate élite.
In the Regnum Francorum, these two groups found it easier to mingle due to the conversion of Clovis and his warriors.
?until he converted with 3000 of his subjects also converting. Legend has it that he converted after appealing to God before a battle on a whim . . and then winning the battle decisively
That was the battle of Tobliac.
Charlemagne (Charles Martel, Charles teh 1)
Charles Martel and Charlemagne were two distinct, abeit related, characters, the first was the uncle of the second, if my memory is correct.
?was not a Merovingian but was the second (or third . . . I can't remember right off hand) King of the Carrolingian line (Pippin=1st)
Of course he was not a Merovingian. He succeeded his father, Pepin the Short, who was the first Carolingian king. The Carolingians continued and strengthened the partnership of the Frankish kingdom the Roman Church, which began under the Merovingian Clovis.
He gets the blame for both Catholicizing and unifying Europe through a very smart reorganization of the Church structure with regardsto how it ministered and how it maintained its different parishes and educated its parishioners, he demanded a standard and put in place an elaborate network which included monesteries and forced them to abide by the standard which he worked out with the Church . . .
[?]
. . . it of course all broke down when his three sons missmanaged the regions that he left them and then it just further slid into feudalism . . . but anyway . . . blame Charlemagne . . tha's what I always say
The ancient notion of the state, the Res publica (public thing) was rotting away as the Roman Empire itself became more militarised and autocratic, not to mention decadent.
For the Frankish chieftains, there was no difference between sovereignity and property, and so the kingdom was treated like a personal possession to be carved up between heirs after the king's death (which was followed by interencine warfare till a new winner would emerge). Allegiance was also personal, to the king rather than to the kingdom, which naturally led to the feudal system. It took till the end of the Middle-Ages till one could see once again a distinction between the state and the estate.
While Charlemagne was strong enough to keep his kingdom united, the system which he fostered did not favour unity. His death brought an end to the united Frankish kingdom which was finalised by the treaty of Verdun of 843, establishing a kingdom of Francia Orientalis (later the kingdom of Germany, which melted away in small fiefdoms), Lotharingia (later, the duchy of Lorraine), and Francia Occidentalis (which became the kingdom of France).
The Ecclesiastical state that you mentioned . .. was that the confederation of city states that remained loyal to the pope during the struggles between the Pope and (I think) Henry2 (German Emperor- or am I thnking of his father . . . it all blurs)?
The ecclesiatical state was the Italian fief which the Popes ruled as a sovereign and most temporal princes. It was founded in 756 and lasted till 1870.
Originally posted by Jubelum
I'm tired of not receiving the same courtesy from the "anti-Christiandom" crowd...Christians walk a fine line between evangelism and being overbearing. We are supposed to bring people to know Christ through love... not fire and brimstone. I will not back off from the demand that people see me, rather than who they THINK I am based on the societal label of "Christian"
And the reason why the "anti-Christendom" crowd lump the good Christians in with the bad is because WE lump the good non-Christians in with the bad. Turnabout is fair play. I've known many, Muslims, Hindus, Lesbians, Gays, etc. who were inifinitely more socially compassionate and humble than a lot of the Christians I've met in my life. Are they all going to Hell, alongside all of those mass murderers and child molestors, because they're not "Christian"? (As opposed to Christians who are openly racist and sexist who are "supposed" to go to Heaven?) I don't believe that for a second.
I don't mind being labelled a Christian -- I welcome it. And I try to challenge people's traditional views of Christianity, just as how I try to change traditional views within other Christians of ALL other Christians as unsaved heathens who are condemned by default.
Yes, you're right. Use love to bring the message of Christ to people who don't know about it. That's great. It sure beats bashing people over the head with Scripture thinking that they'll instantly convert.
Originally posted by Moogs
From everything I have read and heard about this movie, Gibson is not "making anything up"... he's taking this story straight from the same book (John) we Christians have had read to us by our church leaders for decades and decades. The part about Satan being incarnate (if true) would be the only exception to this AFAICT, and the only one that would be really distasteful, absent something visual in the movie (not spoken) that I haven't yet seen.
Q. ADL has said the film could fuel anti-Semitism. How so?
A. We fear the consequences of this film. There will be many people who are not so familiar with the Gospel narratives and might believe that everything they see on the film derives directly from the New Testament. Much of what is on the screen is Mr. Gibson's artistic vision and finds its genesis in extra-Biblical sources. We are also concerned about those who already are disposed unfavorably toward Jews and will use this to fan the flames of hatred.
Q. Is the film faithful to the Bible and accepted Christian teachings?
A. The script is based upon the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and John. But in order to weave together the story, these different texts must be harmonized and holes in the story must be filled in. The Biblical text tries to project a story of faith, but some of the narratives also reflect the growing schism between the Church and the Jewish people. Modern scholars have taught that the Gospel narratives must be taught responsibly. Since the Second Vatican Council of the early 1960's the Catholic Church has taught that the Jews of Jesus' time, as well as the Jews of today cannot be held responsible for the death of Jesus.
Q. Who else shares ADL's objections?
A. The concerns are shared by responsible Catholic, Protestant and Jewish theologians, clergy and citizens. A committee of nine Jewish and Catholic scholars studied an early screenplay and unanimously found it to be historically inaccurate, unfaithful to the gospel narratives and to project a uniformly negative picture of Jews. Mr. Gibson and his Icon Productions were aware of and approved of the script study until they received its conclusions.
Guess you didn't actually read the ADL's objections to the film.
Originally posted by rampancy
And the reason why the "anti-Christendom" crowd lump the good Christians in with the bad is because WE lump the good non-Christians in with the bad. Turnabout is fair play. I've known many, Muslims, Hindus, Lesbians, Gays, etc. who were inifinitely more socially compassionate and humble than a lot of the Christians I've met in my life. Are they all going to Hell, alongside all of those mass murderers and child molestors, because they're not "Christian"? (As opposed to Christians who are openly racist and sexist who are "supposed" to go to Heaven?) I don't believe that for a second.
I don't mind being labelled a Christian -- I welcome it. And I try to challenge people's traditional views of Christianity, just as how I try to change traditional views within other Christians of ALL other Christians as unsaved heathens who are condemned by default.
Yes, you're right. Use love to bring the message of Christ to people who don't know about it. That's great. It sure beats bashing people over the head with Scripture thinking that they'll instantly convert.
*Applause*
Thank you, rampancy, that addresses it perfectly. The all-or-nothing exists on both sides of the fence(s), and anyone on any side who has a problem seeing that generally could be classified as one of the offenders.
Originally posted by Moogs
Only if it is obvious that anti-semitism, racism or sexism is clearly present. From what I have heard from all parties thus far, I suspect it is not. I won't know for sure until I see it.
There's a broader context here though, and I think this anti-Semitism issue has to be seen in light of that context.
1. Most historians believe that it is implausible that Jews had much influence over the Romans to carry out an execution.
2. Although the Bible portrays it that way, it is likely that the authors may have changed the events a bit in order to make the story more palatable to Romans, as well as to fight an internal battle with some Jewish leadership at the time.
3. Gibson's movie, by some accounts, goes even further than the Gospels in blaming the Jews for the crucifixion. (Although I've read that some of the scenes have been removed for the final cut.)
4. Some Christians throughout history have used anti-Jewish themes in the Gospels to rile up anti-Semitism, including the Holocaust.
Also, their argument in your quoted text boils down to: "some people are ignorant of the gospels, and therefore may be adversely affected by this film and do something bad".
That is about the most flawed piece of logic I've seen in this whole debate, quite frankly.
As for Vatican II, it has oft been misquoted with regards to this movie though it seems the ADL is nearly on-point. The Council did NOT say that "Jews had nothing to do with it" (as many are claiming). They said that modern-day Jews should not be held responsible for it in any way (basically). It's analogous to those who are the descendants of slave owners in this country, are not to be blamed for their fore-fathers' mistakes. And I agree with that whole-heartedly.
In the end, what this whole thing boils down to, is that there is basically no irrefutable evidence either way. You can either believe Christ was handed over by the Jewish high priests and their followers, or you can believe the Romans did the whole deal. You cannot disprove either theory. The fact that one sheds an ill light on some Jews 2000 years ago doesn't make it "bad". It's another interpretation of something that frankly, none of us have the "inside line" on.
I think another problem the ADL has with this movie is really... how gory it is. And I imagine that any crucifixion was a gory, awful scene. And so of course if there are any Jews standing by as it happens (almost IMPOSSIBLE that there weren't), then the ADL will take that as "a statement that Jews are bloodthirsty", which I think is also disingenuous. Even a fool knows that this story took place thousands of years ago, and so you cannot by logical extension say that what one group was then, they must also be now.
Again, those who look for ignorant excuses to hate will find them. Those who think for themselves will either see this movie and like or dislike it, but not "hate Jews" because of it either way.
Originally posted by BRussell
3. Gibson's movie, by some accounts, goes even further than the Gospels in blaming the Jews for the crucifixion. (Although I've read that some of the scenes have been removed for the final cut.)
For the last time, I have seen the film. The "Blood Curse" scene was still in at that point. (It's since been removed.)
Even with the crowd shouting "His blood be on us, and our children", Gibson's movie goes NO FURTHER than what is in the Gospels. That phrase is in there and that is the only instance in the movie that can be considered really controversial on the anti-Semitic issue, and now it's no longer there.
The accounts you allude to are flat out wrong. I look forward to this thread on Wednesday, when everything's in plain sight.
Originally posted by Moogs
\\I think another problem the ADL has with this movie is really... how gory it is. And I imagine that any crucifixion was a gory, awful scene. And so of course if there are any Jews standing by as it happens (almost IMPOSSIBLE that there weren't), then the ADL will take that as "a statement that Jews are bloodthirsty", which I think is also disingenuous. Even a fool knows that this story took place thousands of years ago, and so you cannot by logical extension say that what one group was then, they must also be now.
What's the connection between Jews being under ruthless Roman occupation and being unable to do anything about it - as one of their own Rabbi's is crucified (one among thousands of Jews crucified by, and otherwise murdered by the Roman death machine) and Jews being Blood thirsty? Was Jesus's mother and disciples blood thirsty as well for having done nothing but watch Jesus supposedly die at that Roman cross? I find your line of argument extremely sly and provocative. In fact, I would find it blood libelous!! <insert epithet>
Originally posted by Moogs
That is about the most flawed piece of logic I've seen in this whole debate, quite frankly.
As for Vatican II, it has oft been misquoted with regards to this movie though it seems the ADL is nearly on-point. The Council did NOT say that "Jews had nothing to do with it" (as many are claiming). They said that modern-day Jews should not be held responsible for it in any way (basically).
Again, those who look for ignorant excuses to hate will find them. Those who think for themselves will either see this movie and like or dislike it, but not "hate Jews" because of it either way.
I think I have to agree with Moogs on this one. Sure, I can definitely sympathize with those who are concerned about how the movie can come across as anti-Semetic, but in all honesty, how could anyone make a movie about The Passion without making it appear that it could be anti-Semetic? Like with the New Testament itself, anyone with the desire could make this film out to be anti-Semetic propaganda, and no doubt more than a few people will. But if they do, it's their problem for thinking that.
Geez. What next? Is the New Testament itself going to be outlawed for appearing to be anti-Semetic?
Maybe I've being overly idealistic, but I too think that the majority of the people who will be watching this movie (moderate, mainstream Christians) will be intelligent enough to know that this is simply one man's interpretation of what happened in Scripture. I really don't think that watching this movie will induce the masses to rush out of the theatre (literally) screaming bloody murder.
Oh, and one more thing: I looked up the issue of Jews being responsible for the death of Christ in my handy-dandy Catechism, and here's what I found. Moogs, I guess you'd be interested in this:
(Part One, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 597)
Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus' death
The historical complexity of Jesus' trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the partcipants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the Apostles' call to conversion after Pentacost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter, in following suit, both accept "the ignorance" of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still, less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd's cry: "His blood be on us and our children!" a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. As the church declared at the Second Vatican Council:
"...Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion...The Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture."
Originally posted by rampancy
Geez. What next? Is the New Testament itself going to be outlawed for appearing to be anti-Semetic?
Maybe I've being overly idealistic, but I too think that the majority of the people who will be watching this movie (moderate, mainstream Christians) will be intelligent enough to know that this is simply one man's interpretation of what happened in Scripture. I really don't think that watching this movie will induce the masses to rush out of the theatre (literally) screaming bloody murder. [/i]
Yeah, you'd definitely have to be a moron to come away with anti-Semitic feelings after reading or seeing a movie about the Gospels. Unfortunately, it's happened, and I understand why people are concerned. Many people believe the way the Bible portrays the Jews' responsibility for Jesus' death is at the root of anti-Semitism throughout history.
Apparently, the movie been changed some, and Frank777 is saying the blood curse was taken out, which is probably a good thing, because if there's any specific verse that boils down the whole thing, that's probably it. BTW, that's another great example of how the whole anti-Jew angle was stuck in the Gospels after the fact for effect. Why would a mob curse themselves?
But I think you're right about saying "what's next, the New Testament?" It's just an unfortunate reality that it's a part of Christianity. I just think people want the issue dealt with very carefully. Wasn't it Billy Graham who said that this is the greatest opportunity for evangelism or something like that? I read an estimate that said more people would probably see this movie than all of the Passion plays ever, combined. And then considering the already-present anti-Israel feelings out there, and you have concerns.
"...Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion...The Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture."
And why do you think they felt it necessary to say that, if there's really no problem? To me, the fact that this statement was made underscores the concerns about the issue, it doesn't mitigate them. No one thinks a bunch of Bishops from the Vatican, or average Catholics serious enough to think about Vatican II, are going to go out and kill Jews or something. It's the people who consider themselves Christian but aren't exactly tuned into these kinds of niceities that might be a concern.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Nope.
The second vatican council is somewhat controversial and lead to the splinter group of which gibson (and his father) are part.
Vatican II was hardly unique in that regard. Every major Ecumenical Council has resulted in the creation of a splinter group which rejects the new positions of the church as being antithetical to the faith. The most numerous of these groups is the general collection of folks who have themselves split ad naseum and whom are grouped under the label "Protestant."
If I recall correctly, Gibson's particular sect didn't split off after Vatican II, but after Vatican I. But Gibson has espoused some belief in Papal Infallibility, which was the main issue leading to the Vatican I schism. So he's more of an anti-Vat 2 guy who hangs with anti-Vat 1 folks. He may qualify as a full-blown sede vacantist.
Kirk
Originally posted by rogue master
[B]The divinity of Christ evolved from the Gospel of Mark through the Gospel of John. Mark's Gospel (the first one written that is in the New Testament) was written for the Jewish community. The same can be said for Matthew's Gospel. Luke on the other hand was writing to both Jews and Gentiles while John wrote prodimenantly for the Gentiles. In the Gospel of John we find the virgin birth and the resurrection, neither of which are in Mark's Gospel.
Actually, it goes back farther than that. The question at hand is the moment of diefication of Jesus, when Jesus became Christ.
In Paul's writings, the revelation of Jesus' divine nature was the ressurrection. Christ's overcoming of death was the manifestation of his divine nature.
Mark moved this point forward, to the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, during which the dove (an image of God, and now the image of the Paraclete) sets down upon Christ as God speaks of his devotion to his son. Matthew, being drawn from Marcan material, regurgitates this timeline.
Luke moves the point forward again, to the divine conception of Christ (not to be confused with the Immaculate Conception, which refers to Mary, not Jesus). Jesus in Luke is born and lives his entire life with the imprimatur of divinity upon him (as witnessed by his reception in the temple).
John, in an attempt to make the Gospel more palatable to the Roman Empire (as did Luke), and to confront the charges of the Gnostics, the first heretics of the church, makes Christ preexistent in his narrative, the Word which was made Flesh. Jesus was not only divine from the point of conception to the writer of John, he was divine from the beginning of time.
This emergence of Jesus from man who arose to Godhood, who was bestowed Godhood, who was born in Godhood to Jesus who was pre-existent as God was the chief Christological development of the first Christian century. From the point of John forward, the preexistent God-Christ was the majoritarian, orthodox view, consented to by the Church universal. The letters of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries conform to the Johannine view.
It is inaccurate to say that the divinity of Jesus as a preexisting God is an addition accrued in the Constantinian period. The entire historical record speaks against this point (read the writing of the Doctors and Fathers).
After John, Christological concerns moved to more interesting questions like what the mixture of divinity and man there was in Christ and how the two were interrelated.
Kirk
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm just starting to read about this historical Jesus stuff, but I've also read that the Gospels were at least partially targeted at Romans, and so blaming it on them wouldn't go over so well. So the role of the Romans in the crucifixion was downplayed, and the role of the Jews was played up: Herod and the Jews were the real bad guys, and Pilate was just a nice guy who did what the Jews wanted. Of course, that's probably utter nonsense and really doesn't make sense in historical context.
Yeah, you can't read the Gospels as being anywhere near to what we consider a history text. The political needs of the early church were reflected in the tone and tenor of the documents, from Pauls' "zeal-of-the-convert" anti-Semitism to Matthews' attempts to woo Jews to Jesus by casting him in a very Moses-style role, with his flight to Egypt, his 40 days in the desert, etc.
Kirk