Mel Gibson's 'Passion' Draws New Attacks and Support

Sort of reminds me of The Last Temptation of Christ brohaha that happened. The fundies found it offensive. Now the Jews find this one offensive. Personally, my Latin is alright but I will get a bit lost in the Aramaic portions.

I am not going to bolt out the door to see this one, given Gibson and his father's opinion, but I will see it.

Personally, I don't really care who killed him. I don't see any Jews pounding those nails in Christ in any painting I have ever seen. Of course, they could be Jews cleverly disguised as Romans.
 
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/6/25/150758


"When these kind of issues are raised and we feel concern, we speak out even before the film has been made," she said. "We haven't seen it yet, so we can't speak to the film itself.


Wonderful isn't it?
We will tell a director what we find to be offensive without knowing the content.
Sounds like a religious tactic.
Unless there's a new testament I'm unaware of the,xian's maintain the sanhedrin turned JC over to Pilate for execution.
The 'jews' who denied JC are the ruling faction by the context of the NT and not the average,garden variety jew.
I'd wager that if there was a real JC as depicted in the NT and he decided to pop in incognito in the modern day and age and took the exact same stands, said the exact same things and did the exact same works of NT lore the hierarchy of MOST, if not all, christian religions would ambush him in a new york minute for being the anti-thesis of THEIR definition of xianity.
 
justsaygnosis said:
I'd wager that if there was a real JC as depicted in the NT and he decided to pop in incognito in the modern day and age and took the exact same stands, said the exact same things and did the exact same works of NT lore the hierarchy of MOST, if not all, christian religions would ambush him in a new york minute for being the anti-thesis of THEIR definition of xianity.
Ever read "The Grand Inquisitor" from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov?
 
A lot of the time, the "wall to wall condemnations" of a certain movie or play as anti-jewish (or anti-black, anti-christian, etc.) is not so much due to the movie's content, but because of inter-organizational rivalry. No jewish organization wants to be the only one NOT to condemn what OTHER jewish organizations already labelled "antisemitic", for fear or seeming "soft" on antisemitism or "ignoring" it. So there is a snowball effect: once one organization doesn't like it, they all don't.

I haven't seen the movie, of course, since it is still a screenplay. It COULD be that Mel Gibson is a christian zealot and an antisemite--just because he is a celebrity who usually plays sympathetic characters and heroes doesn't mean he's one. This seems unlikely, since so far as I know he was never on record saying anything remotely anti-jewish. However, there is an alternative explanation: it's just difficult to make a movie of Jesus' life that makes the jews look good--for the same reason it's hard to make a movie of Moses' life without disappointing Pharoh's fans.
 

Back
Top Bottom