Posted on 02/03/2004 9:04:52 AM PST by missyme
In a recent interview for a Christian television network about his film "The Passion of the Christ," director Mel Gibson, complaining about his critics, repeated the following phrase four times: "He is an anti-Semite" - suggesting this was the accusation repeatedly being made against him.
We have never accused Gibson of being an anti-Semite. But judging from the E-mails and letters we have received since we spoke out after seeing the film last month - some blatantly anti-Semitic, many more suggesting our criticism was somehow dishonest - there is a need to clear the air.
First, let us repeat that we do not believe that Gibson intended his film to be a passion of hate. Our concerns stem from history. For nearly 2,000 years, Jews have been the victims of persecution and pogroms fueled by the age-old canard that Jews bear responsibility for the death of Jesus for all time.
The charge of "deicide" or of Jews as being "Christ killers" has persisted through the presentation of Passion plays despite the Catholic Church's historic Vatican II pronouncement in the early 1960s. It denounced anti-Semitism and stated clearly that the Jews of the past, as well as the Jews of today, bear no responsibility for Jesus' death.
Gibson's film rejects the modern church reforms. We were saddened and pained to find that "The Passion of the Christ" unambiguously portrays Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus.
We are shocked that Gibson has not fulfilled his promise to remove the most troublesome aspects of this film. We are especially concerned with a scene in which a mob of Jews who are present when Pontius Pilate condemns Jesus to death calls down a blood curse (Matthew 27:25). This scene so far remains intact, even though Gibson indicated that he was removing it.
Even if that particular scene were removed, there would still be ample material in the film to reinforce the image of Jewish responsibility.
We are troubled that Gibson continues to spurn our requests for an audience and that he feels the criticism of his film is part of a campaign to label him an anti-Semite. Gibson's only response to our numerous requests for a meeting was a brief letter, sent last week, in which he failed to address any of the concerns we have raised.
Our concern is that the images could be used by those who are disposed toward hatred to harden their hearts.
Jewish and Christian leaders have not given up hope. We have urged Gibson to consider adding to the movie a postscript with him coming on screen at the end to implore his viewers not to let the film turn some toward a passion of hate.
If the truth were on your side, you'd not have to lie. Hitler was a pagan evolutionist who saw the Jews as mostly ape. He planned on the destruction of Christianity as well as Judaism. He didn't kill millions of Polish Christians because he was a good Catholic.
If Jews can blame Christians for their persecutions-- as they are doing to this very day-- (Who persecuted them before Christ?) then Christians should be able to blame Jews for their persecution. It makes as much sense.
Take your lying propaganda somewhere else.
Your question is a bit bizarre. I suggest you look in just about any history book if you don't know the answer.
Were all of the Nazis and their collaboraters unbaptized ?
You've got to be kidding! How many of their collaboraters were Jews?
It's real simple mr. vet. You have to twist and stretch and use a hammer to make history fit the sick Christian-Nazi connection, but you only have to turn on the news to see who is really bent on the extermination of the Jews. You'd best turn your attention to them. AND- if you think the mere act of baptism makes a person a Christian, then most Americans are Christian (by your definition) and Israel's best friend is a Christian nation.
I don't agree that America is still a Christian nation, but either baptism makes Christians or it does not. If it does, then Israel needs American Christians. If it does not, then your Nazi-Christian connection is an atagonistic lie.
I acknowledge the truth. I don't acknowledge revisionism because that is not the truth.
What lie are you accusing me of ?
Hitler was a pagan evolutionist who saw the Jews as mostly ape. He planned on the destruction of Christianity as well as Judaism. He didn't kill millions of Polish Christians because he was a good Catholic.
I never contended "he was a good Catholic" and neither have I contended that Caiphas or Annas were good Jews. It certainly would not be the first time in history people who called themselves christian killed other people who called themselves christian. There have been many instances of Jews killing other Jews as well.
You contend he was a pagan. A biography says On April 20, 1889, her fourth child, Adolf, was born healthy and was baptized a Roman Catholic. Hitler's father was now 52 years old. What religions were the members of his party ?
If Jews can blame Christians for their persecutions-- as they are doing to this very day-- (Who persecuted them before Christ?) then Christians should be able to blame Jews for their persecution. It makes as much sense.
Jews who persecuted others (like Saul of Tarsus or Caiphas and Annas) are absolutely responsible for their sins and crimes.
Take your lying propaganda somewhere else.
Again you have unjustly accused me of a lie.
I know the answer. Do you say "six million ?"
How many of their collaboraters were Jews?
I would think there were hundreds, even thousands, who collaborated for bread and a chance to live another day.
if you think the mere act of baptism makes a person a Christian,
I'll take that as a statement you do not think a Catholic baptism makes a person a christian, in which case by that definition Adolph was a pagan/heathen/gentile [whatever term you prefer for accuracy]. Feel free to correct the record if I misunderstood your comments. Unfortunately we are stuck with Judas, Caiphas, and Annas as bad Jews. I admit it.
I'm sorry you don't see the Messiah as Torah presents Him. And here comes the real crux: while no crowd had authority two thousand years ago to condemn all Jews to suffer for their act, Yahweh Himself had announced His own attitude centuries earlier:
I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.
Deuteronomy 18:18-19
That is the judgment about which I would be more concerned.
Dan
History contends he was a pagan. He contended he was a pagan. The guy was consumed with Ayrianism! Do you know wat an Aryan was? Look it up! An Aryan was a descendant of the Atlanteans! Hitler was an insane occultist!
How does Hitler's baptism as an infant-- against his will-- make him a Christian? Christianity is not a race. It is a choice. Infants can't make that choice.
Again you have unjustly accused me of a lie.
Would you feel better if I used a different word? You are trying to make a connection between Christianity and Nazism. There is nothing in common between the two. Nothing.
Jesus said that all the nations will have an opportunity to hear his word. "The Passion of Christ" is one great example of that.
I hope so. Europe and 1/3 of Americans need it.
I am not anti-Christian. I wish far more nominal Christians were religious.
As for a breakdown of dialogue, that is exactly what Foxman wants.
As for sanctimony, perhaps you should pay attention to CONTEXT before passing judgement.
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.