Krauthammer: "Gibson's Blood Libel"

Washington Post ^ | Mar. 5, 04 | Charles Krauthammer

[stands2reason]

Yeah, well I think Mel and for that matter most RCs have missed it to.

So what is the point?

[drlevy88]

We're dealing with a US Certified Grade A Troll, here.

[mercy]

No, he's the whole problem. This movie is not balanced. You think it is because you are Christian and know the whole story. This movie will not minister to the Jews or any nonchristian. If he had cut the violence in half and gave a halfway decent exposition of the resurection it would have been a good movie. The Gospels tell the whole story and do it in a balanced manner. Because they were God breathed. This movie is twisted.

[wardaddy]

I'm a Protestant but do not have the issues with Catholicism so many do here.

It's not for me but I sure don't have any quarrel with them aside from a few side issues like liberation theology.

I felt the Catholic focus on Mother Mary in the movie was a nice addition. It gave a nice human perspective to Jesus and I thought Morganstern was superb.

[nopardons]

Good points all.

The only problem, as I see it, is that so many here are ignorant of the history I posted and intolerant of the feelings some Jews ( not the crazy types, like Abe Foxman !)have now, because of the 1,000+ years of overt anti-Semitism they know took place. This is all an emotional reaction, from ALL sides. Intellect is almost nowhere to be found on ANY of these threads on FR, in news papers, or on T.V. and radio.

And no, I haven't seen the film, but I have seen clips from it and I am a Christian.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

You are flagellating the present with the horrors of the past, and accusing living Christians of wicked intentions.

Remove the plank from your own eye.

We won't be silent about our faith, nor will we sanitize the Gospel to allay your fears. American Christians have not the History of anti-Semitism you would impute to us.

We'll declare the Gospel and still remain Israel's greatest friend, whether you like it or not.

Wow. (Applause!)

[wardaddy]

Earlier in the thread you were wondering if you could continue to defend the movie in the face of your Jewish wife, Jewish friends and Krauthammer's slam.

Now the movie is "twisted".

You made up your mind in the last hour based on what?

[Al Simmons]

You are flagellating the present with the horrors of the past, and accusing living Christians of wicked intentions.

"'Remove the plank from your own eye.

We won't be silent about our faith, nor will we sanitize the Gospel to allay your fears. American Christians have not the History of anti-Semitism you would impute to us.

We'll declare the Gospel and still remain Israel's greatest friend, whether you like it or not.'

Wow. (Applause!)"


*BUMP*!!!!

[Texasforever]

This movie will not minister to the Jews or any nonchristian

Where did Mel say that was his intention for the movie?

[wardaddy]

Great Post!

[drlevy88]

If he had cut the violence in half and gave a halfway decent exposition of the resurection it would have been a good movie.

Well the resurrection wasn't played up as much as Protestants commonly do, but it was there. The shroud collapses and Jesus walks out of the tomb, with his visible wounds GONE. What part of "risen again" isn't clear???

[Ronzo]

There have been other very good movies made about Christ ... including well done scenes of the crucifiction. The Jews were not outraged. Why are they so hurt now? I think good christians need to ask themselves this question.

I watched both "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (1965) and "Ben Hur" (1957) since seeing "The Passion." The reason why the Jews didn't go off on these films is because both portray the ROMANS as the ones who really wanted to kill Jesus, not so much the Jews. In Ben Hur, the Jewish involvement in Christ's death is completely left out.

But the gosples never say a word about the Romans wanting to kill Jesus for any reason. The myths about the Romans being mad at Jesus because he was inciting rebellion is pure Hollywood left-liberal myth; no such accounts are reported in the gospels, nor in any other historical document that exists from those times.

All four gospels are quite clear that the Sanhedrin was out to get Jesus, and only the Sanhedrin. (Though there are accounts of other lay Jews wanting to kill him because of alleged blasphemy....)

Mel Gibson wanted his movie to be true to the gospel accounts, as well as the stations of the cross. Very little of the "visions" of that silly nun are given credence, though one that was a direct result of her vision was Mary wiping up the blood with towels given to her by Pilate's wife.

All four gospel accounts clearly portray the Sanhedrin as the ones who wanted Jesus dead, and they were the ones who manipulated Pilate into doing the deed for them.

The reason many Jews are mad at this particular version of the Passion, is because this is the first "popular" movie version of that event that really tried to stay as true to the gospel accounts as possible. Those accounts all portray the Sanhedrin in a bad light.

Those Jews who are deeply offended by this movie are only identifying with the Sanhedrin, to the exclusion of all the other Jewish characters portrayed in this film, like Mary, Jesus, the apostles, etc. All of whom were just as Jewish as the Sanhedrin, but differed with them on some key theological (if not political) points.

It should be also be noted that according to history, Ciaphas, the high priest, was appointed by the Romans, as were ALL high priests during the Roman occupation.

[mercy]

see my #63

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

This movie will not minister to the Jews or any nonchristian. If he had cut the violence in half and gave a halfway decent exposition of the resurection it would have been a good movie.

What makes you think being flogged and crucified wasn't violent? Which Jews and non-Christians are unaware that Christians believe Christ was resurrected, and did not understand the final scene in the film when the burial cloth was empty, and Jesus was seen alive?

You don't even make sense. I think you're just being critical for sport.

[nopardons]

Which doesn't matter ( Gutenberg and his press ), because most people, including kings, could not read.

[nopardons]

But, those "feelings " never really left off, later on, when people could read and had their own bibles. It simmered below the surface.

[stands2reason]

This movie is going worldwide and the Aramaic line in the film that says "The Jews, because they 'killed Christ,' must be pursued and punished for all generations" and which Gibson was convinced by critics not to include in the English translation in the U.S. release of the film might very likely be translated for other countries showings of the film.

"The Jews, because they 'killed Christ,' must be pursued and punished for all generations"

I have never seen that line mentioned in the Bible. I think you just made it up. Besides, what makes you think that the film will be translated from the Aramaic instead of from the English? You think every country has loads of Aramaic translators just waiting for a job to come their way?

And another question. Have you seen the film?

[hellinahandcart]

"The Jews, because they 'killed Christ,' must be pursued and punished for all generations"

That's quite a different translation you have there for "His blood be upon us and our children". You're implying there was a directive to kill Jews, and there never was. Believe me, we're very familiar with the line that was cut. It doesn't resemble your fiction in the slightest.

Anyway, regarding the "His blood be upon us" line-- what makes you think that scene is still in the film in any form? You think he just erased the subtitles and left the audio in? Not to mention the visual?

Makes no sense. This was not a cheap production and there would be no motive to edit the thing cheaply.

Anyway, why wouldn't they just translate the English subtitles? How many people in the world can translate Aramaic, vs. how many able to translate English?

[Sabertooth]

This movie will not minister to the Jews or any nonchristian. If he had cut the violence in half and gave a halfway decent exposition of the resurection it would have been a good movie. The Gospels tell the whole story and do it in a balanced manner. Because they were God breathed. This movie is twisted.

Finance your own movie, or rent "Jesus of Nazareth" by Francisco Zeffirelli, which is quite good.

"The Passion of the Christ" isn't twisted, it's a dramatic retelling of that last twelve hours of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, based primarily on the Gospels and the Book of Isaiah. It's a violent story.

Where the script deviates from the Scriptures, it doesn't contradict them.

You are stretching hard to find something wrong with this movie.

[ultima ratio]

I'm not impressed. Christians have been persecuted as well. Right now hundreds of thousands are being slaughtered and enslaved in Sudan. Christians are persecuted in Pakistan, in India. None of this is unusual among peoples of different religions. Why do you imagine Jews are exceptional? Bloody Mary persecuted Protestants; Elizabeth forced Catholics to convert and hounded and executed priests; Lutheran princes slaughtered 130,000 Catholic peasants; rationalists of the French Revolution slaughtered 300,000 Catholics in one region of France alone; Catholics and Protestants have been at each other's throats for centuries in Ireland; Sunnis hate Shiites and vice versa. So what makes you think the Jews were in any way exceptional? Why must Jews make everything--even a film celebrating Christian redemption--be about themselves? And why do Jews like Krauthammer dare to slander Christianity by linking normal historic frictions between peoples of differening faiths to Hitler's demonic psychopathic genocide? That is the true libel, not Gibson's innocent film.