Falling Into the 'Passion' Pit (Michael Medved takes up cudgels for Mel Gibson's movie.)

The Jerusalem Post ^ | February 19, 2004 | Michael Medved

[quidnunc]

Every day, Israel faces new attacks from terrorists determined to murder Jewish children. In France, synagogues burn, cemeteries face desecration, and leading rabbis urge their followers to shun kippot in public. In every part of the globe, the militantly secular, America-hating Left makes incongruous common cause with Islamic fundamentalism in circulating poisonous anti-Semitic canards, including ludicrous charges of Jewish conspiracies behind banking, media, "neo-conservative" foreign policy, and even the devastating attacks of 9/11.

In the midst of this alarming eruption of anti-Jewish sentiment, some usually level-headed commentators have reached the preposterous conclusion that this is the perfect moment for a ferocious new debate with our Christian neighbors on the eternal question "Who really killed Jesus?"

The fact that my otherwise savvy friend Rabbi Shmuley Boteach believes that we have any chance at all of winning this debate reflects appallingly poor judgment. And the determination by Boteach and many others to conduct the argument in an aggressive and ultimately insulting way at this precarious moment in history represents a far greater spur to anti-Semitism than any mere motion picture from Hollywood — even a sure-bet box office blockbuster like Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. For the record, let me make clear that I agree with Boteach that the Christian scriptures provide an often unreliable, occasionally contradictory account of the persecution and execution of Jesus of Nazareth.

If I believed that the Gospels represented an unfailingly accurate report of the events of two thousand years ago, I'd be a Christian, not a Jew.

-snip-

By what right do Boteach and his many outspoken allies in the Jewish community demand that Mel Gibson and his innumerable supporters among Protestant and Catholic clergy should reject their own religious tradition to accept a Jewish version of the death of their savior?

-snip-

[Tamzee]

Why don't the critics focus on the fact that every single hero in The Passion of the Christ is a Jew? Their arguments are equivalent to saying that the movie JFK is anti-caucasian since Lee Harvey Oswald was white. It just makes no sense.

Good point about how inconsistent the argument is.... I never expect the left to "make sense", though, it's begging for a migraine ;-)

[The American Man]

>“Why don't the critics focus on the fact that every single hero in The Passion of the Christ is a Jew? Their arguments are equivalent to saying that the movie JFK is anti- Caucasian since Lee Harvey Oswald was white. It just makes no sense.”<


“It makes no sense” because most people don’t take the time to study what religion is. They don’t understand that religion doesn’t have to be irrational and “wacky.” John the Baptist was not a wacko. Saint Paul (a Jew) -- the founder and architect of what is now generally called the Christian faith -- was not a wacko. Jesus Christ was not an irrational Being. From a young age he studied the scriptures (Torah) very deeply. He put searching questions to his teachers(Rabbis).

You talk about Jews murdering Jews: what about Christians murdering Christians? What about the murder of the Prophet Joseph Smith: the founder of the Mormon Church of Christ? This is mans favorite pastime. Than after the atrocity is committed -- too late -- they repent what they have done!

And now the same small minds are focused an Mel Gibson. They may not physically harm Gibson; but what about character assassination? What about the weapons of slander and innuendo: don’t they do harm? Some things never change... it’s just a matter of degree.

[Texas2step]

This is one of the interesting differences in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Catholics focus more on the crucifixion; the Orthodox focus more on the resurrection.

It requires focus on both. The cross is meaningless without the resurrection. The resurrection is meaningless without the cross.

As for violence and bloodshed, it was prophisied and it was truth. Jesus story is not a G rated story. But, that's what many, many Christians want to believe. They want to believe that His sacrifice for us wasn't that difficult. After all, He's God. Right?

We cannot take for granted His display of love for us on the Cross.

[Yardstick]

Neither Catholics or Orthodox take either the crucifixion or the resurrection for granted. Both events are revered and holy for both. So it's not an either/or thing -- but there is a difference in where they place their emphasis. I prefer the emphasis on the resurrection, since after all, Jesus once was crucified but now is risen.

[Texas2step]

I prefer the emphasis on the resurrection, since after all, Jesus once was crucified but now is risen.

But where they place the emphasis is a matter of opinion. In your opinion, too much emphasis is placed on the cross and not enough on the resurrection. Others may have the opinion that it's the other way around.

I would argue that we shouldn't argue since we both believe in both.

We can certainly express our opinions, but we should not pass them off as fact, IMO.

Yes, emphasize the resurrection! But do not neglect to emphasize the cross, as well, which gives us the only reason we have to hope in the resurrection.