[mercy]

Yeah, I'm thinking too. Though I abhor the sensless level of violence that Gibson has used as his main cenimatic tool in this movie I have defended him to my Jewish friends as NOT anti-semitic. My jewish wife and I have had a few heated discussions about it.

Now I don't know.

If a genius like Krauthammer is offended by this film I have to really pay attention to that.

We are not supposed to offend our brothers. Surely the Jews ARE our brothers.

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.

[drlevy88]

The cross is foolishness to Gentiles, and a stumbling block for the Jews.

[Texasforever]

Why are they so hurt now?

Who is hurt? Who has been hurt? Who will be hurt? Should Christians be "hurt" that Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the Messiah?

[wardaddy]

Don't break weak now...geez....Krauthammer is damned flawed.

[Sabertooth]

Though I abhor the sensless level of violence that Gibson has used as his main cenimatic tool in this movie

It isn't senseless, it is accurate. Furthermore, the Blood Atonement of Christ has theological underpinnings. This is the Blood that washes away sins. It was innocent, and spilt for our sakes.

Christ's Blood is not gratuitous, it's essential to Salvation.

If a genius like Krauthammer is offended by this film I have to really pay attention to that.

It means Krauthammer has flaws.

We are not supposed to offend our brothers. Surely the Jews ARE our brothers.

And we are theirs. There is no offense intended in this film.

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.

No, good Jews need to ask themselves this question:

Why are they insisting on taking offense where there is none?

Before seeing the film, I heard Professor David Allen White of the Naval Academy offer his opinion. He said that "The Passion of the Christ" isn't a great movie, "it's a turning point in human History."

The controversey surrounding this film is not because of anything wrong with the movie.

[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.

[DentsRun]

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?

They weren't outraged because nearly all previous Christ movies were bland and boring and none of them stuck closely enough to the gospels to make you feel for once just how cleverly the greasy, sleazy Caiaphas manipulated the Romans into killing Christ. Pilate may be weak and cruel but he's also an honest man put by the priests in the no-win situation of either crucifying an innocent man or letting him go free and thus causing an insurrection that would cost Pilate his job (and also his neck when word got back to Rome).

Caiaphas and his fellow priests, on the other hand, are far worse than cruel. They're craven, manipulative liars who shamelessly tell Pilate "We have no King but Caesar," when everyone including Pilate knows they don't believe it for a second.

I think most Jews were willing to live with the Gospel portrayal of them as long as it stayed on the printed page, but when you portray the same events as dramatically as Gibson does in "The Passion of the Christ" the mendacity of the high priests just leaps off the screen. I'm sure that's what they're upset about. Gibson's portrayal of the Gospels just has too much power.

[xsmommy]

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

not all Jews are offended by it, read your fellow Freepers posts. Several, on this thread alone, have expressed their opinion that they looked for antisemitism in this movie and found none. Charles Krauthammer is not infallible.

[ilgipper]

If Jews are out raged, it is either because they are not paying attention, or those individual are ignorant. Kraut is way, way, way off on this one. He may or may not be a 'genious' as some say here, but he is typically logical and clear thinking. Here he is not. Just because I typically enjoy him and his writing/appearances, that does not mean he is always right.

[ought-six]

"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."

They were made by or produced by Jewish film makers. Remember the movies that showed Jesus' birth, and the killing of the innocents that took place afterwards? Those films were -- for the most part -- made by Hollywood, and by Jewish film makers and producers. In reality those innocents were killed by Jewish guards and soldiers, who were sent out by Herod, who was also a Jew. I don't know of anyone who is not disgusted at the murder of babies (well, except for some Democrats and an awful lot of feminists), but I don't recall anyone going ballistic and condemning those film makers who depicted Jews killing the innocents. I have to assume that if "The Passion" had been made by a Jewish film maker, and it was portrayed exactly as Gibson's film was, there would be widespread acclaim for it by all of Hollywood and virtually all of the Jewish leaders in America, instead of the vitriol and vehemence that have been thrown on Gibson. I just see a whole lot of hypocrisy.

[mdmathis6]

I tell you what they are hurt and afraid of. Mel Gibson is a well respected and charismatic actor and producer who made a bold unequivical statement of faith , leaving none of "bloody, nasty parts out". Christianity is a bloody religion. God required blood to cover the national sins of Israel for once a year, but the blood of animals was never enough to completely extirpate the "blood libel" owed by Israel to God, and of course the gentile nations were still in the gross darkness of ignorance regarding the love of God. "Since by man came death, by man came also the Resurrection of the dead"...simple poetic balance as stated by Paul..."not by animals" but by Man. But not just any man, for even the best men among us think thoughts that would cause angels to lose their light, should they ponder them. The man Christ Jesus!

If a pastor preaches the "bloody story" of Christ Jesus, is he not conjuring up images of violent flayings and crafty evil men conspiring "against the Lord and his Anointed!"? Are not Southern Baptist ministers guilty of presenting Christ as the "blood libel" poured out for our trnasgressions? Gibson has just gone ahead and captured his particular vision of this on film; he has not done anything differently than Billy Graham would have done at a local crusade!

Lets take the term "blood libel" A libel is not just a law term meaning a tort liability.. The term libel also means "drink offering", libels of wine and oil were often poured out in sacrifice in ancient Israel. Christ's blood was indeed offered as a drink offering, a "blood libel" poured out for our transgressions! Krauthammer was right about "blood libel", he was just wrong about the interpretation, and miles from God's message of grace