Interview: Mel Gibson

Dark Horizons ^ | February 16, 2004 | Paul Fischer

[Robert Drobot]

"Christianity took their cherished Torah and said that it had been superseded by a new testament."

Your intensity is inviting, but your facts are skewed. The above sentence should read, "Christianity took their cherished Torah and [joined it to the] [N]ew [T]estament."

"Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also...."
- 1Rom3:29

[FLAUSA]

While the story of Jesus will not result in anti-Semitism, the parinoid reaction of Jewish leaders will.

I do not blame the Jewish people for what was said and done 2,000 years ago. I do blame the Jewish people for what is said and done today.

[AAABEST]

The skateboarding monk is funny, the "clown mass" is hillarious to the point of horrific. m4629 turned me on to this one last night. Just when you think you've seen everything.

Christ the King Parish, Pleasant Hill, Diocese of Oakland, CA, under former Bishop John Cummins at the time. September 1, 2002, Sunday, 9:30 Mass

[Selous]

Bump. And much obliged.

[Selous]

Bump. And much obliged.

[Taffini]

Please tell me, is that an actual mass?
I would like to know the details of this one.

I went to a communion mass a few years ago and it was like a hippy love in. No altar rail, the tabernackel moved to the side of the altar (so as not to be the main focus I guess)someone jammin' on the piano and the priest telling jokes about the pope and Tiger Wood.

Things have changed. I stopped churching many years ago. I wonder if Mel will let me into his church? I just can't relate to this NEW catholic church.

[AAABEST]

Yes believe it or not that obscene gaggle was an actual mass. The info as to when and where are posted underneath the photo. I wonder if Mel will let me into his church? I just can't relate to this NEW catholic church.

LOL! Mel doesn't have to let you in - although he seems as if he would have no problem doing so.

There are many varieties of traditional or pre-Vatican II worship if you are interested. You can check my profile page or take a look at our traditional forum if you would like to know more.

If would prefer, FReepmail me and I will be glad to correspond privately or by telephone if necessary.

[ultima ratio]

Each of your charges deserves a thoughtful rebuttal. I will deal with each in a separate post. Two of them I will dismiss outright.

To begin with, Christians do not believe Christ intended us to supercede the Torah with the New Testament at all. The notion is alien to Christian thinking and is a myth. Both texts are read by Christians and both are revered as sacred. In the Catholic Liturgy of the Mass readings from both texts are required to be read from the pulpit.

But your most serious charge is that the anti-Semitism of Christians led to the Holocaust. You cite a professor of Holocaust studies who charges that "without the anti-Judaism — much of it anti-Semitism — of the New Testament, or at least in the way the New Testament has been interpreted and taught, there would have been no Nazism, and there would have been no Holocaust." This is a scurrilous charge, easily refuted.

None of the Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church, has ever taught hostility to the Jews. But even if this were the case--and I do not concede this point at all--you would be hard pressed to prove that the anti-Semitism in Europe before the Second World War in any way led to the Holocaust. On the other hand it is easily proved that much of the hatred between Jew and Christian on that continent before WWII was mutual. By your own admission many Jews even now hate Christianity. It was this mutual hatred that fueled anti-Semitism, not Christianity per se nor the New Testament which teaches love for one's enemy. But this does not mean any of this hostility led to genocide.

Religions have always clashed with other religions in certain regions of the world since time immemorial; it is not at all surprising or unusual that this also happened in Europe. It certainly happened on other continents. It's happening now in Sudan where Muslims are slaughtering and enslaving Christians by the hundreds of thousands. It's happening in Pakistan and India where Muslims and Hindus are at each others' throats and where Muslims in both countries relentlessly persecute Christians. There is nothing new about any of this nor anything that is unique to the Jews.

Look at the history of Catholics in England whose priests were hunted down for the crime of saying Mass and Catholics were forced to convert. Trace the history of the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. This is the sad story of the human race and its intolerance, it is not the story of Jews alone nor of Christians alone. The Sunnis persecute the Shiites and vice versa. To suppose that such universal frictions--found in certain regions of Europe before WWII--derived from the New Testament or were especially cruel and unusual is to misinterpret history. These clashes have always existed, not only between Jews and Christians, but between Christians and Christians, between Christians and Muslims, etc.

The Holocaust WAS unique and exceptional--but it had nothing to do with Christianity nor with Christian teachings and to say so goes beyond the facts and is profoundly offensive. The attempt to revise history to link routine anti-Semitism to Nazism, which was a demonic and evil force almost as antithetical to Christianity as it was to Judaism, is itself a grotesque form of anti-Christian bigotry. This is particularly true when such charges slander historically good Christians--I include Pius XII as foremost among them--who had done so much to rescue Jews and to alleviate Jewish suffering and persecution during the Second World War. Italy, for that matter--the very seat of the Catholic Church and in the heart of Europe--became a safe refuge for Jews during that dark period. Lutheran Sweden likewise. Jewish historians know this, which is what makes some attacks on Christianity--and on the Catholic Church in particular--so poisonous and unjust.

It is also untrue that Christianity had EVER taught that Jews were collectively responsible as a people for Jesus' death, though this may have been an idea with widespread currency among Christians looking for excuses for their hostilities, especially in eastern Europe. But Christians everywhere have always been taught from childhood that we are ALL responsible for Jesus' death, Jew and Gentile alike. It has been an important dogma of the Catholic Church from its very beginning. Trent repeated this in the sixteenth century and forbid anti-Semitism explicitly. Vatican II once again repeated the proscription against blaming Jews collectively for Jesus' death. None of this is even new, though journalistic accounts ignorantly proclaim that it is.

The alternative for Christians--if they wish to oblige their Jewish critics--would be to deny their own faith and reject their own historical accounts of what happened to Jesus. This appears to be what critics are saying, and it is intolerable and offensive. It is not for Jews to tell Christians what is acceptable by way of doctrine or history. Nor should we repress our own beliefs for the sake of what amounts to Jewish paranoia regarding something that happened two thousand years ago.

I will address your other major point--concerning the claim of the divinity of Jesus Christ--in a separate post.

[King Black Robe]

Can I be added back to your passion ping list? I'm not sure how I got removed.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Mel was righteous; every word directed to reflect God's glory and not his own.

He sounded almost Reformed when he said "God is responsible for everything; He makes my bed; He makes our cars..."

When one finally sees God's hand everywhere, there's no turning back.

God chooses His warriors knowing the enemies they face. Gibson will be victorious. All glory to God.

[BibChr]

Mel, Reformed?

The guy who says his wife's going to Hell because she's not Roman Catholic (Fatal Gospel Error #1)?

The guy who says that really isn't fair, she should go to Heaven instead of him, because she's got better works-righteousness than he (Fatal Gospel Error #2)?

THAT Mel??

Dan

[FreedomSurge]

I think you missed the point of my post, I probably did not make it clear enough.

I believe a large number, possibly a large majority, of Jews hate/dislike Christianity (not necessarily Christians).

The reasons for this hatred are threefold. 1) They believe Christianity is responsible for the Holocaust. 2) They believe Christianity is responsible for nearly all of their problems for the last 1,600 years. 3) They believe that Christianity blasphemes all major tenets of their religion.

The large number of posters on this site blame liberals for the opprobrium being poured on Mel's movie, whereas in reality most of the hatred against Christ's Passion is coming from Jewish sources. Liberals may be ganging up because they too hate Christianity but for different reasons. My post was just to point out the reasons for the Jewish hatred.

[ultima ratio]

Here is what you stated in your last post: "They [Jews] read some of the New Testament's insidious attacks against them and wondered how a book claiming divine authorship can be so blatantly anti-Semitic." Then you state the following: "Although Christianity stemmed from Jewish origin, it took the concept of the Jewish God and associated it with a man; took the concept of sacrifice and associated it with a human sacrifice."

In fact, these two claims by Jews are really one and the same. Jews interpret the New Testament as "invidious attacks" on themselves; they also claim that Christians took the concept of the Jewish God and ascribed it to Jesus. But if you examine the two charges, you will see they may be conflated. This is because it was Jesus himself, not his followers, who insisted on his claim to divinity, and it was this which seemed so blasphemous and invidious to Jewish leadership two thousand years ago.

It's clear from the Gospels that Jesus' ministry was a slow unveiling of his own identity. In John 5:1-23, Jesus passes by a pool near the Sheep Gate of Jerusalem. There he notices a man who has been crippled for 38 years. Jesus heals him in violation of the Sabbath, angering some Jews who witness this. Jesus explains this action by saying, "My Father works even until now, and I work." This verse is followed by this statement by John regarding the reaction of some Jews to his words: "He was not only breaking the Sabbath, but also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God."

Following this, John 10: 22-40 relates another incident in Solomon's Porch in the Temple where the doctors of the law taught. One day, they put this question to Jesus: "If you are the Christ, tell us openly." To this Jesus answered, "I have told you, but you will not believe me." Then he adds this: "My Father and I are one." When the doctors of the law heard this, they took up stones to kill him, saying, "Not for a good work do we stone you, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God."

Luke also records similar incidents. In Luke 5:20, Jesus tells an invalid his sins are forgiven. The Pharisees and doctors of the law immediately protest, saying, "Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?" Jesus refutes them by telling the palsied man to get up and walk, curing his affliction, and astonishing the multitude.

Such passages can be repeated many times over. Jesus himself made the claim to divinity, not his followers--who, like everybody else, found it difficult to believe, especially since they were raised as pious Jews. Yet there was no doubt by anyone, including the Jewish leadership, that Jesus was making such an outlandish claim. The leadership later told Pilate, "We have a Law, and according to that Law he must die, because he Made himself the Son of God."

To prove his claims to divinity, Jesus performed miracles, showing he possessed the unbounded power that God alone possessed--and these included the raising up of people who had already died. Such signs were powerful testimonies to his power. So his teaching and his miracles went hand in hand. This was what was creating a theological crisis amongst the Pharisees especially. How could Jesus do what he did unless he was who he said he was? The Pharisee Nicodemus admits this when he comes to Jesus secretly one night and says, "Rabbi, we know that you have come a teacher from God, for no one can work these signs unless God be with him." (John 3: 1-2.)

Jesus made this very clear in John 5: 36--"The witness, however, that I have is greater than that of John [the Baptist]. For the works which the Father has given me to accomplish, these very works that I do bear witness to me, that the Father has sent me." And again in John 10:38--"If I do not perform the works of my Father, do not believe me. But if I do perform them, and if you are not willng to believe me, believe in the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in the Father."

At the heart of the debate between Christians and Jews is Jesus' claims backed by his miraculous works. Behind these, for us today, is the integrity and authenticity of the New Testament documents themselves. Christians accept these claims and works and documents, the Jews do not. Herein lies the crux of the tension between the two religions. It is not that Christianity has launched "invidious attacks" on Judaism, but that it does not reject what Judaism has rejected. The only remedy to such an unbridgeable chasm of faith and understanding is mutual tolerance.

[ultima ratio]

I probably did miss your point--since I thought the arguments you presented were your own, rather than an interpretation of what others believed. Just the same, my posts--I just wrote another long one--will be useful for any lurkers curious about the Christian position.

[ultima ratio]

I wouldn't believe that quote. Gibson stated last night on ABC just the opposite. Don't believe everything you read.

[BibChr]

A little pithy for me.

You're telling me not to believe the direct quotation of Gibson saying that he affirmed no salvation for non-RCC's, but that it's not fair because his wife is a better person than he?

And you're saying that he said on Diane Sawyer that one needn't be an RC to be saved, none is saved by works, we are saved by the grace of God alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone?

That'd be great!

But of course he'd no longer be an RC.

Dan

[Sloth]

"Must one become a protestant in order to remain a member of the Catholic Church?" The diocese of Cleveland has no difficulty answering "Yes."

What, exactly, in that blasphemous 'Dos and Don'ts' list strikes you as sounding Protestant? (I am neither Catholic nor Protestant, FWIW)

[ultima ratio]

Not true. He did say all Christians could be saved--and even non-Christians. Nor is this out of keeping with pre-Vatican II theology. Pius XII and before him Pius X both affirmed that those outside the Catholic Church could be saved--even the unbaptized, if they lived righteous lives according to the natural law written on their consciences. The famous incident of Father Feeney--who disagreed with Pius XII on this and was disciplined for it--would prove this point. It is just not true that Catholics believed Protestants, for instance, could not be saved--though I had heard Protestants tell me, as a Catholic, that this was what I believed. It's not true and was not true a hundred years ago. In any case, Mel was explicit about his belief--that all could be saved, especially Christians.

[FreedomSurge]

I appreciate your responses they are well thought out.

[FreedomSurge]

"Following this, John 10: 22-40 relates another incident in Solomon's Porch in the Temple where the doctors of the law taught."

Who were these doctors of the law? They were the Pharasiees.

Who did Jesus rale against? The Pharasiees.

Who are the Pharasiees of today?

"Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. When the Jew reads his prayers, he is reciting formulae prepared by pre-Maccabean scholars; when he dons the cloak prescribed for the Day of Atonement and Passover Eve, he is wearing the festival garment of ancient Jerusalem; when he studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian academies."

The Jews of today are the Pharisees of yesterday. You have to admit Jesus was rather hard on the Pharisees.