'Passion' Needs Postscript

ADL ^ | Feb 3rd 2004 | By Abraham H. Foxman and Rabbi Granatoor

[missyme]

Exactly...If CHRISTIANS stop supporting ISRAEL after all FOXMAN has branded us ANTI-SEMITES for believing in the GOSPELS then what happens to the future of ISRAEL..

Can they really defend themselves agaisnt there ARAB enemies without the help of "THE CHRISTIANS" NO.

[Texas2step]

When I saw "postscript" I thought they meant the film needed to include the Resurrection.

Does it? Anybody?

My understanding is that it does, but only in a "postscript" kind of way. This is one aspect where I fear Mel may have taken some artistic license. I don't mind artistic license as long as it is consistent with the purpose and spirit of the scriptures.

[kittymyrib]

Janet Jackson flaps her boob for attention, and Foxman flaps his mouth for attention. He surely is scared of Jesus!

[missyme]

It does end with the Resurrection..FOXMAN Wants Mel to come out on screen after the movie stating the film is not about HATE AGAISNT THE JEWS...I never thought it was but it seems to FOXMAN thinks Christians need a history lesson in his version of the GOSPELS..

[missyme]

BINGO!!!
I truly beleive FOXMAN'S fear is that if UNBELIEVERS Jews and Gentiles see this movie they will want to know more about Jesus Christ and have the opportunity to accept him as there Lord and Saviour....THAT IS HIS FEAR, so he is trying to do whatever he can to crush this possibility..

Satan is definetly working over time on this one...

[ex-Texan]

Foxman only has himself to blame for all the repercussions when "The Passion of Christ" becomes a BIG HIT. He has whipped up a controversy where none existed. To Mel's credit he has been subdued in the tone of his reply rhetoric.

[muskogee]

At least Gibson left this part out: Matt. 27:51 "Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom;..." That means more to me concerning Judaism then the genetic make up of the angry mob.

[weegee]

Ray Bradbury told a story about how someone at a studio wanted Judas cut out of the a passion story (The King Of Kings? I read that Mr. Bradbury wrote the narration for it). Such tinkering is not unheard of.

I seem to recall that Mr. Bradbury appealed to a studio head at MGM and said something like, "So all of these Christians are going to go see this movie on Easter and wonder, 'What happened to Judas?'..."

[rmlew]

You may believe that a mob of Jews shouted this out, but I see no reason to.
Jews do not believe in intergenerational blood-guilt.

[BibChr]

You may believe that a mob of Jews shouted this out, but I see no reason to. Jews do not believe in intergenerational blood-guilt.

Well, I guess apart from the testimony of those alive and present at the time, there really is no reason to believe the narrative.

And I guess two thousand years later we know a lot more about their thinking than their contemporaries did.

Not.

Dan
How to Make Your Very Own Jesus

[rmlew]

You make the ahistorical assumption that the Jewish leadership of the time actually represented Jews.
The fact is that they represented Judeans no more than the Vichy Regime represented the French.

The historical fact is that the collaborationists saw Jesus as a threat and turned the self-proclaimed "king of the Jews" over to the Romans for execution.

[missyme]

Exactly, does Foxman an others who are going along with his rhetoric think that Christians seeing this movie won't recognize a sanitized version of the GOSPELS? if it is not faithful to the GOSPELS it will have absoloutely no merit to any CHRISTIAN watching it, and it will be no better than THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.

[rmlew]

Please inform your local police officers and historians of the 100% veracity of biased bystanders in an event, writting years latter.

[missyme]

What do you mean? How does this negate the story of the "GOSPELS in the New Testament...What if we start changing the OLD Testament around to suit people that think the stories are to violent for children to hear or
that we should apease to the theory of Evolutionists?

When we start questioning to Word of G-d we are in major trouble...

[BibChr]

Please inform your local police officers and historians of the 100% veracity of biased bystanders in an event, writting [sic] years latter [sic]

Please inform all historians of your notion of the vast superiority of millennia-later biased speculation over against written contemporary testimony.

Also kindly let archeologists know that they can cease their exploration, as you have done away with the role of hard data.

And finally, as you consider yourself an authority on the thinking of all Jews who ever lived, and regard it as monolithic, could you please give us a detailed description of what all Jews believe on everything, and what no mob of Jews would ever say? I can think of three Jews I know fairly well; and their beliefs are quite diverse.

But of course, untethered to actual historical (or other) data, you can unravel this all for us, no?

Dan

[missyme]

I make no historical assumptions. I do not fit the Holy Bible in to what suits me...

I beleive the entire HOLY BIBLE.....The Old and New Testament as the Word of G-d. I beleive I am a sinner and blame no-one for the crucifixcion but myself. I pray to
G-d daily and asked Jesus to come in my heart long ago and he did and has not left. I love G-d first before any human being before anything..HE COMES FIRST MY LOYALTY is the the WORD OF G-D FIRST!

I believe the JEWS were G-d's Chosen people and Salvation came thru the JEWS. But THE JEWS were not sinless not 2000 years ago not from the beginning of time and not now.

WE ALL HAVE FALLEN SHORT IN THE GLORY OF GOD ALL Not some but all HUMAN BEINGS....

We all are going to DIE and we all will have to answer to G-D.

[rmlew]

What do you mean? How does this negate the story of the "GOSPELS in the New Testament..
I am not questioning the generalities. I am questioning one part of a larger recollection.

What if we start changing the OLD Testament around to suit people that think the stories are to violent for children to hear or that we should apease to the theory of Evolutionists?
It depends what part you mean. The Five Books of Moses were written by God. Everything else was written by man.
I do not neccesarily believe that everything in 1 or 2 Kings is the WHOLE truth, only that it is a A truth.
If two people see the same event, they may have different recollections. No one is lying, but neither may be giving a full and 100% accurate recollection later.
If you will note, there are elements in some Gospels, not found in others. That does not make them lies, but simply shows that they were written by men. When we start questioning to Word of G-d we are in major trouble...
Matthew wrote the Gospel, not God. Perhaps there was divine prompting, but where do you get the idea that this was written by God?

[L,TOWM]

I'm sorry--I meant YOUR comment was INSIGHTFUL--virus induced delirium.

[rmlew]

Please inform all historians of your notion of the vast superiority of millennia-later biased speculation over against written contemporary testimony.
1. The Gospels were not written during the events. They were written latter.
2. As any writter, Jesus's disciples wrote from a perspective of assumed knowledge. In their case, they were writting with a knowledge of Jewish law and custom, not held by the average Christian (or even Jew) today.

Also kindly let archeologists know that they can cease their exploration, as you have done away with the role of hard data.
Reread my comments. I have done no such thing. Calling a recollection 10% innacccurate, does not negate 90%.

And finally, as you consider yourself an authority on the thinking of all Jews who ever lived, and regard it as monolithic, could you please give us a detailed description of what all Jews believe on everything, and what no mob of Jews would ever say? I can think of three Jews I know fairly well; and their beliefs are quite diverse.
If Jews are not monolithic, then the mob had no right or reason to proclaim a blood curse.
My whole point is that Jews like all peoples are not monolithic, which is a reason why we never support blood-curses!

[lady lawyer]

No problem.