Replies

Charge one as to departing from the gospels to make Jews look worse than the gospel story:

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging.

Charge two is that the satan wraiths merge with the Jewish "mob" (which wraiths are also apparently not in the gospels). Whether the overall gestalt of the message is that the Jewish mob were temporarily taken over by Satan, or that they were the functional equivalent of Satan, I don't know. I have not seen the film.

So the issue is, is what is Mel's defense to artistic license not in the gospels, that make the Jewish mob, and Jewish authorities, look worse than the gospels suggest?

I agree that Kraut's overall thrust is over the top. The gospels are what they are. For those of us who are non-believers, it is all understandable. The Romans and the Jewish authorities offed folks that they perceived threatened their authority all the time. The place did not have the American Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus. But to the extent Mel departs from the gospels, to make the Jews look worse to believers than the gospels "teach," he is fair game for criticism.

What say you?

If the movie had been 100% gospel, it would have been but 15 minutes long.

The extrapolations made were logical and or cinematic, as in the case of the visual of evil.

Evil is everywhere! Not just within the walls of that Jewish town so many years ago.

How it might be seen is imagined by Gibson. As part of a crowd, as a snake, as a tree.

As to making the Jews appear worse than the gospel, Gibson really softened that aspect. some biblical quotations were omitted and great care was taken to convey that not all were complicit, but only a few and even the High priests were not unified.

Why does Satan meandering through the crowd become some sinister plot piece on the part of Gibson?

Logically, Satan would have to work his way through the crowd to get close enough to tempt Jesus. From an artistic/asthetic point of view, having Satan walking beside Jesus the entire time is not as powerful.

Satan tempted Jesus early on - the conversation where Satan states that no man can take all of our sins upon himself and that we aren't worth it.

After this conversation it seems more powerful to have Satan some distance from Christ, but within sight as if to say "you can walk away from this torture and join me."

Not once, not ever, did I equate Satan with the Priests or the Jewish people in the crowd. Satan is Satan. Satan is evil. Satan is humanity sans Jesus.

While this storyline may not be part of the approved Gospels, I found it particularly uplifting and thought provoking. It forced me to confront whole new line of "what ifs?"

Primarily among them is what if Jesus had not given in to temptation. [Surely He was tempted during his crucifiction.]

Further, this storyline helps hammer home Jesus' sacrifice.

Could part of the problem of the overly sensitive be that they don't have a Faith-based frame of reference to evaluate these issues?

I truly believe that is the case and that people are being overly sensitive.

I came away from the movie angry -angry at myself and my sins. I came away from the movie angry that the Son of God endured such torture for my sake since I'm not worthy of such sacrifice. I did not come away angry at any group of people except the Media, Hollywood and some of the more hysterical Jewish leaders for creating such a fuss about nothing. Not that the movie will cause me to hunt any of them down...I'll just boycott these imbeciles and keep an open dialouge in defense of the movie.

Psycho's will always find excuses to act out their dementia. Gnashing one's teeth and tearing one's robe over a movie becuase of what it might cause is just plain silly.

Charge one as to departing from the gospels to make Jews look worse than the gospel story:

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging.

I think this is picking at nits. John 19:6 says that the chief priests and officers, who were doing the bidding of Caiaphus, wanted Jesus Crucified after having seen the results of the scourging.
It's hard to argue that Caiaphus would have been squeamish at Christ's torture and mutilation, so it's hard to see how the license taken by Gibson in the scene you describe unfairly reflects on Caiaphus.

There is no "merging." Satan's spirit form walks among the Jews at one point, shadowing Mary, Mother of Jesus, who is walking amongs some Jews on the opposite side of the courtyard. There is no indication that Satan has possessed the Jews, or is in league with them.

But to the extent Mel departs from the gospels, to make the Jews look worse to believers than the gospels "teach," he is fair game for criticism.

What say you?

To the extent that Gibson departed from the Gospels and related Scriptures (such as Isaiah 52 and 53, as well as Psalm 22), the intent was for dramatic effect, not to make the Jews look bad. Sometimes the deviations create balance in favor of some righteous Jews. In the trial before the Sanhedrin, Gibson depicts two of the chief priests as objecting to the trial, yet they are not found in Scripture.
These may have been Joseph of Arimathea, a Sadducee, and Nicodemus, a Pharisee. Both were members of the Sanhedrin and were secretly followers of Christ, and we learn later that they arranged for Jesus' burial. I'll make a point of looking for them in the credits the next time I see the film.

I agree that Kraut's overall thrust is over the top

That's being charitable. To falsely accuse someone of a blood libel is to commit the same libel.
I'll be following Krauthammer to see if he reconsiders at all. I very much want to hear him go at it with Dennis Prager, who is also Jewish, but has been supportive of Gibson's efforts in making this film, and his sincerity in trying to avoid any impression of anti-Semitism.