Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

My Passion About 'The Passion' (Mel Gibson)
Lewrockwell.com ^ | August 16, 2003 | Steven Greenhut

Posted on 08/21/2003 2:00:13 PM PDT by Korth

As someone who writes commentary for a living, I have learned to not get too emotional about most political issues, to take stinging criticism in stride, to not let disputes get personal. If I didn’t keep a little distance, I’d probably already have dropped over from a stroke. Yet once in a while an issue angers me so much that, try as I might, my eyes pop out of my head, my blood pressure rises, my hands start trembling.

The debate – if that’s what you want to call it – over Mel Gibson’s forthcoming movie "The Passion" is such an issue. I’ve even lost my cool at a local representative of the Anti-Defamation League. But I cannot help myself for a simple reason.

Organized Jewish groups are demanding that Christians change their religion to suit their sensibility. It’s as simple as that. Gibson is presenting a straightforward account of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the Gospels. Jewish organizations can’t dispute that the movie is striving to be an accurate presentation of the Gospel account, but argue that such an account will lead to anti-Semitism.

The ADL and other groups demanded an early screening of the movie. Even Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, who lobbed puff questions at Rabbi Marc Gellman, who was critici zing the film, questioned the demand that the film’s critics should have a right to an advance screening. As O’Reilly pointed out, he doesn’t let his enemies view the draft of his books, so that they can spend months trashing and distorting its content.

That seems simple enough. But totalitarians such as ADL National Director Abraham Foxman don’t grasp simple concepts of property rights (it's Gibson’s movie, not Foxman’s) or artistic freedom. "The film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus," he said in a statement, as reported on WorldNetDaily. "We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate."

Thankfully, the Christian community has Foxman to tell them which churches are responsible, and which ones are not. Surely, Foxman would consider an Orange County evangelical congregation to be irresponsible for its recent airing of a segment of the film. What’s next? Previews of sermons?

Two key factual points the ignoramuses ought to consider before continuing their campaign of censorship and harassment:

First, the Gospels do suggest that Jewish authorities were involved in the crucifixion of Jesus. It’s not that hard to find. Let’s see, choose any of the Gospels, then turn toward the end of them, in the depictions of Jesus being turned over to the authorities. Most Bibles even have simple subheadings to ease the process.

From John 18:28: "Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. ... So Pilate came out to them and asked, ‘What charges are you bringing against this man?’ ‘If he were not a criminal,’ they replied, ‘we would not have handed him over to you.’"

Now, I’m not saying Foxman and company have to believe the Gospel account. I am simply saying they ought to read it and understand what it says. If they insist that others deny the words of Scripture, then they are insisting that others change their religion to suit them. That is an outrage that demands a firm rebuke.

Second, the Gospels are not suggesting that Jews are, as a group, responsible for Jesus’ death. They are suggesting something far more radical and disturbing. They are suggesting that every man and woman living then and now is responsible, through each individual’s sin, for the death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

It is not about blaming Jews. It is about blaming individual sinners. Couldn’t Foxman at least try to understand the theology behind the Scripture before condemning the work of others? Other points are relevant:

Jesus was a Jew, his followers were Jews, everyone was a gentile or a Jew. So, of course, Jews were among the heroes and villains in the story of Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

It’s true that some people have distorted the Christian story to persecute Jews. I’m not unaware of that point. Although I am a practicing eastern Orthodox Christian, I come from a Jewish background. My dad was a Nazi concentration camp survivor. My mother still displays on her wall a piece of wood from the family’s synagogue in Germany that was torched on Kristalnacht.

The ADL should deal with those who distort the Christian message, not insist that the message be changed just in case some idiot might interpret it in the wrong way.

It’s frustrating also, that some Christians and even a group associated with the Catholic bishops, have been critical rather than supportive of Gibson’s act of faith. They are far too busy promoting "tolerance" to spend any time advancing their faith.

Another point made by that rabbi on O’Reilly’s show: Perhaps Gibson’s disturbing movie is too harsh in its tone. But despite what O’Reilly stupidly said, Jesus did not die for equality and so we love one another.

Those are side benefits of the crucifixion and resurrection, but they are not the main purpose. Jesus died for our sins, to save our souls. Harsh stories need to be told in harsh ways.

Perhaps I should calm down and take solace in this fact: All these years later, the Gospel still sparks debate and causes offense. It still matters, despite the efforts of those who want to transform real Christianity into some Disney-fied version.


TOPICS: TV/Movies
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 08/21/2003 2:00:14 PM PDT by Korth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Korth
wow. A decent article from Lew Rockwell! Is the Rapture far behind? :>
2 posted on 08/21/2003 2:02:15 PM PDT by KantianBurke (The Federal govt should be protecting us from terrorists, not handing out goodies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Korth
Nice article. I think this work of Gibson's and the reaction to it are excellent guide-posts on our road to oblivion. When the truth, regarding an issue as important as this, must be squelched in the quest for political correctness, the society that this takes place in is on the verge of becoming unworthy of existing.

It vitally important for our society that Gibson be allowed to create his work, show it, and then we criticize or salute it for what it actually is, not what we feared it might be.
3 posted on 08/21/2003 2:11:14 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
With all the publicity and controversy that Mel Gibson's movie is getting beforehand perhaps people who would not ordinarily go to see a religious-themed movie will go see this one and decide for themselves.

The real fear for some is probably that people who see the movie will be moved by the story and become interested in Christ's message. Sadly, I think there are some who feel threatened by that idea.

To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, either Christ was right in what He proclaimed and did or He was a crazy, and nothing He said or did fits with Him being a crazy. If you actually pay attention to the Christian story, it's very compelling, which is probably one reason why this movie is very compelling, because Mel stuck close to the story!
4 posted on 08/21/2003 2:31:21 PM PDT by Sabatier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Korth
An excellent article by Steven Greehut. He speaks for many.
5 posted on 08/21/2003 2:32:28 PM PDT by Malesherbes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
I'm calling Hell for the weekend ski forecast now...
6 posted on 08/21/2003 2:37:19 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Korth
Although I am a practicing eastern Orthodox Christian, I come from a Jewish background.

How could a person of Jewish background possibly be Eastern Orthodox? Has this guy ever heard of St. John Chrysostom? He ought to read some of the stuff Chrysostom wrote. He would hate himself.

7 posted on 08/21/2003 3:29:15 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
How could a person of Jewish background possibly be Eastern Orthodox? Has this guy ever heard of St. John Chrysostom? He ought to read some of the stuff Chrysostom wrote. He would hate himself.

Maybe one of his parents was Eastern Orthodox, and his belief in Christ led him to embrace that particular expression of the Christian faith.

By the way,Chrysostom was pretty critical of Christians. One of his most famous quotes is "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests". I've never read his anti-Jewish rhetoric in context; I've read one quote of his about the Jews, and it looked horrific.

8 posted on 08/21/2003 4:56:27 PM PDT by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Clintons a commie
Maybe one of his parents was Eastern Orthodox, and his belief in Christ led him to embrace that particular expression of the Christian faith.

Yes, I am sure that is probably it.

10 posted on 08/21/2003 6:35:17 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Korth
got this off the net from an article, I think the writer was jewish, never-the-less, it illustrates what's going on. Its not the movie, its not Mel Gibson, its not even the Gospels...its Jesus. After over 2000 years its still all about Jesus Christ. We are blessed when they say all manner of things against us for His name's sake.........

"...That is just the problem. The Fourth Gospel is part of a nasty exchange of polemics between two sects of Judaism ... This obscure argument would have mere curiosity value except for two huge magnifiers.
First, these two sects were the only viable survivors from among the two or three dozen Jewish sects that had flourished in Jerusalem in the late Second Temple era. Then, in 70 AD, Rome destroyed the Temple and nearly levelled Jerusalem. Of all the forms of Judaism, only the descendants of the Pharisees adapted sufficiently to survive: The main group became the founders of modern Judaism, and a second bunch, a slightly off-brand set, the followers of Yeshua of Nazareth, became the forebears of Christianity.
Even so, the rivalry of these two groups would have been merely a cat fight in a Middle Eastern sandbox had not the Roman Empire turned Christian in the fourth century, a win for the Yeshua crowd. Suddenly, arcane polemics of the first century AD were broadcast empire-wide and eventually worked their influence on governmental policies in dozens of Western countries for several centuries."

...ok lefties, got any new arguments? The ones you are putting up are kinda old...(Eph 6:12)
11 posted on 09/28/2003 9:09:48 AM PDT by Corneilus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sawool
Gibson takes 'Passion' play to Newmarket

Icon considers release timed to Ash Wednesday
 
By GABRIEL SNYDER
Jim Caviezel stars in Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of Jesus Christ,' which Newmarket will distribute domestically.
 
Mel Gibson has pacted with Newmarket to handle U.S. distribution for his controversial (and recently re-christened) "The Passion of Christ."
The rent-a-system deal means that Gibson's Icon Prods. will retain all rights to "Passion" while relying on Newmarket's distribution apparatus in exchange for a cut of the gross.
A source close to Gibson said that Icon is mulling a release timed to Ash Wednesday, which next year falls on Feb. 25 . Previously, Gibson had been eyeing a release tied to Easter, which falls on April 11.

Icon is distributing "Passion" itself in the U.K. and Australia, where it already has its own distrib operations.

Because Newmarket will hold no rights on "Passion," Gibson remains on the hook for the $25 million he has already personally spent making the film, which depicts the last hours in the life of Jesus Christ.

With dialogue in Latin and Aramaic -- though the pic will now be subtitled -- even Gibson has conceded that the film would be a tough commercial sell.

Months before its planned release, "Passion" has attracted the kind of publicity that few commercial filmmakers would welcome.

Some Jewish scholars and orgs have said "Passion" will provoke anti-Semitism because they think it revives the ancient slur that Jews are responsible for the death of Christ. Meanwhile, some conservative Christians and Catholics, including Vatican officials, endorsed "Passion" as a teaching tool after Gibson screened the film for them.


12 posted on 10/22/2003 11:30:52 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Corneilus
Months before its planned release, "Passion" has attracted the kind of publicity that few commercial filmmakers would welcome.

 "bad publicity is good publicity"
~Marilyn Monroe, In March 1952,

13 posted on 10/22/2003 11:31:35 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
I didn't know that Lew Rockwell was Eastern Orthodox.
14 posted on 02/22/2004 8:50:59 AM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern; Korth; MarMema; Clintons a commie
John Chrysostom is not only an Eastern Orthodox Saint, but Roman Catholic as well. In Orthodoxy, he is the cornerstone, along with Basil the Great, of the faith, and in the RC Church he is officially designated as the Doctor of the Church.

One would have to know Orthodoxy to realize that there is nothing in this faith that can be construed as based on hate. No one quotes Chrysostom's homilies against the Jews. St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther and other prominent Christians have used language that today would be considered highly antisemitic. But there is a difference between opinion and theology. Quite a number of Roman popes were less than deserving of their throne, yet do one dozen or so corrupt individuals corrupt the entire church and undo all the good deeds and honorable people in it? Does one Menachim Begin, a terrorist, invalidate the State of Israel? Does one Wagner invalidate all of German music?

Chrysostom was equally harsh, primarily on his own clergy, monks, and imperial courtesans. His homilies against the Jews were written before his ordination as a priest and certainly way before he was ever elevated to the Bishop of Constantinople.

Chrysostom considered priests and bishops who gave in to sin as doubly guilty -- because they should know better -- and maintained that there are so many corrupt priests and bishops that they will line the path to hell.

One ofm the first things he did as the Imperial Bishop was to prohibit female servants in clergy's homes. He was especially harsh on vanity of elderly women, including Imperial family and even the heretic Empress indirectly. That didn't win him friends or favors and in fact lead to his sudden demise after a brief period of great influence in the Imperial City. One can say that he was harsh and didn't tolerate the "wobbly" and the corrupt no matter who they were. He is mostly remembered as the father of the modern Liturgy, a divine service in content and melody. He is remembered and revered for his Christianity.

15 posted on 02/23/2004 6:39:07 AM PST by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
He is????
16 posted on 02/23/2004 6:43:19 AM PST by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Korth
But despite what O’Reilly stupidly said

Redundancy.

17 posted on 02/23/2004 6:48:54 AM PST by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
LOL!

OReilly seems like a weird ass pervert to me. He is always covering some kind of weird sex story about children or porn or molestation or something. I can't stand his show.
18 posted on 02/25/2004 7:50:47 AM PST by Borderline44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Korth
This movie was a Renaissance masters painting come to life in sight and sound and emotion with 2004 technology.
19 posted on 02/27/2004 6:22:07 PM PST by ezoeni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ezoeni
This movie was a Renaissance masters painting come to life in sight and sound and emotion with 2004 technology.

Completely wrong. The Renaissance masters did not focus on the physical torment of a man in his 30s. They were far too intelligent and savvy to fall into that trap. The spiritual element was paramount to those guys. Look at Michelangelo's Pieta and tell me what relation it has to Gibson's ultraviolent orgy of blood. The Passion just takes the last 5 minutes of Braveheart and stretches it to 2 hours. I found nothing spiritual or uplifting about this film. I found nothing challenging about this film. There are many Christian films that are far superior to The Passion.
20 posted on 03/03/2004 4:55:11 PM PST by Borderline44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Borderline44
whatever... ha ha
21 posted on 03/03/2004 7:31:00 PM PST by ezoeni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ezoeni
Thank you for your insightful analysis on this compelling topic.
22 posted on 03/04/2004 8:38:14 AM PST by Borderline44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson