'Passion' viewers too shaken to hate

NY Daily News ^ | March 21, 2004 | John Leo

[feedback doctor]

"....Jews also noticed that when God becomes angry at the killing of Jesus, he doesn't wreak havoc on the Roman forum or Pilate's house, he destroys the temple."

That was the whole point of Jesus' death. The Jews performed animal sacrifices for attonement of their sins at the Temple. Jesus died for everyones sins as the sacrificial Lamb of God. The jewish Temple was no longer needed. Jesus' death abolished the need to perform animal sacrifices.

Also, God now would dwell among, and in those who believed Him. That was why the veil in the Temple was torn in 2.

[cyncooper]

Although I did notice several Protestant churches having to do sermons on Mary and what her true biblical role was in the last couple of weeks.

What about the portrayal of Mary in the movie would be deemed not "true" to her Biblical role?

I fear to ask.

[cyncooper]

At our Catholic church, wise men and camels are placed on one side of the church, the manger with the Babe and Holy Family on the other, and they finally are displayed all together on the Feast of the Epiphany.

[An Old Man]

SHALOM!

Peace be with you also.

Semper Fi

[lonevoice]

Jews don't understand why Christians don't seem to get this.

I guess the article's author could take this up with the Pope. Tell him that he just doesn't get it. "It is as it was."

I find it offensive when individuals (such as this John Leo) purport to speak for an entire ethnic group...such as The Jews. Some percentage of Jews agree with Leo, but is there a homogenous opinion among Jews? This reminds me of Al Sharpton and his ilk.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

I saw it this weekend, really glad I did too. Three separate times in the movie I realized I had tears running down my face. However now I've seen it once it's going to be a good long time before I see it again. I can't imagine going through that three times in a month, such as yourself.

God bless

[supercat]

As for "free-wheeling" scenes found nowhere in the Bible, perhaps the author refers to scenes like the demons antagonizing Judas as he runs off and ultimately hangs himself or such artistic additions.

What about the table scene?

[TalBlack]

The best account od D-Day was not in the actual violence. It came from Ernie Pyle the next day. He recounted the personal stuff left all around.

Agreed. But in a film made 50 years later viewed by a genaration(s) which, collectivly, couldn't imagine the level of fear, violence and sacrifice that everyone from Pyle to Rosie the riviter lived with every day, the violence in the film D-DAY was a mere snapshot. That's what I meant by "underdone". That said I am a big believer in letting the viewer/readers imagination do the heavy lifting, as Pyle demonstrated in your example.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Once again .. I agree with you. What is there to be angry about? That was the whole point of the sacrifices of God and of Jesus. IMO,The life and Death of Jesus is about a lesson, not about paybacks.

[AnAmericanMother]

In our home, the wise men and camels are on the far side of the dining room on Christmas Day (when we put the Baby Jesus in the manger) and the children move them a little closer each day until they finally arrive at the stable on January 6 (Epiphany).

The children also write their good deeds on tiny slips of paper and put them in the manger "to make a soft bed for Jesus."

[Between the Lines]

Why would they ?

I lead a small group that is doing a 'Passion" study and I also co-lead a not so small group dedicated to a six week study on the 'Passion'. Most who saw the movie (and these are all evangelicals with three fundamentalists thrown in for fun) say the one thing in the movie that moves them most, impressed them most, or that they most related to was Mary and her sufferings. And that is what they want to talk about, but neither study delves into that subject. Mary is only a footnote.

[Between the Lines]

What about the portrayal of Mary in the movie would be deemed not "true" to her Biblical role? I fear to ask.

The scene where she lays on the floor in temple to be close to Jesus imprisoned below. Mary at the Jewish trial. Mary at the scourging. Mary follows Jesus most of the way when he was carrying the cross.

BTW this is not only extra-biblical it also conflicts with Catholic tradition. (See the stations of the cross.)

[Salamander]

Well, the table did have "dove" tails well before they were invented and it was pretty much crafted in the "Mission" style.
I think it was an inside joke and I loved it....;)

[Between the Lines]

I would like to thank you both for sharing these wonderful ways to present the Nativity. Beautiful.

[McGavin999]

Maybe now they will try to understand US. We support the Jews....period. Stop being afraid of us, we're your friends, we're probably your only TRUE friends.

[ApplegateRanch]

There are lots of people who believe the Gospels are hate literature.

And I'll bet the Canaanites would have thought the same about the Pentateuch, had they been able to read it. Doesn't mean that it is by any means; without it, we would have no foundation for the Gospels.

. . . .Jews also noticed that when God becomes angry at the killing of Jesus, he doesn't wreak havoc on the Roman forum or Pilate's house, he destroys the temple. .....

....Jews don't understand why Christians don't seem to get this. They tend to think that Christians are either blind to the movie's message or insensitive to the feelings of Jews. .....

What so many, both Jew & Christian, tend to forget is that Christians are very familiar with both Old & New Testaments, though I suspect that few Jews are really as conversant with the New as Christians are of the Old. That tends to blind Christians to the fact that what is obviously not antisemitic, can honestly seem so to Jews.

A major clue is the phrase about God being "angry at the killing of Jesus". God was FAR from angry; Jesus had flawlessly FULFILLED God's plan of reconciliation.

One does not get angry at reconciliation. Had He been angry, it would have been far more than a few Romans and the Temple that would have been destroyed.

Instead, the Temple was NOT destroyed; the Temple VEIL was rent, symbolizing an opening of a way to approach God.

[VRWC_minion]

Mary is only a footnote.

Luke would disagree. He starts his gospel with Mary. Luke 1 is one of the most beautiful responses to obedience to God's will of anyone in the bible and Luke uses this event to introduce the gospel. He uses Mary's motherhood to appeal to his listener. Mary is there at the beginning and she is there at the end. She is the bookends.

At the end, Luke again has Jesus responding to "the women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him" (Luke 23:27)

He then says to the women "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For the days are surely coming when they will say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.'

If Gibson's movie evoked a female/motherhood response to women in your group, then he brought alive in them the emotion that Luke raised by the above words of Jesus. Through the eyes of a mother we see the picture of the fallen innocent child placed next to the suffering Christ and at once the scripture "do not weep for me, but weep for your children", comes alive.

I'm a man and can only glimpse how a mother would react to Jesus's suffering. Luke attempts to tell us. Gibson attempts to show us. Based on the reaction you see, it looks as if Gibson accomplished the objective of bring Luke's scripture alive.

[VRWC_minion]

FYI, see above

[Between the Lines]

Luke would disagree.

I think it interesting that you would choose the book of Luke to base your argument. Though Mary is at the beginning and the end of Luke, she is nowhere to be found in Luke's version of the Passion. Not one word. Yes, Jesus did address the women of Jerusalem in Luke 23:28-29 (the eighth station of the cross), but it does not say that Mary was among them and since Mary was not from Jerusalem we can only assume that she was not. Footnote: We can conclude that later in Luke 23:49, 55-56 when he mentions the women of Galilee who had followed him, that Mary was included with them, even though she was never mentioned by name.

Mary is also totally missing from the Passion in both the books of Mark and Matthew. Again not one word.

But we do find Mary in the book of John. The one and only time Mary is mentioned during the period of Passion is in John 19:25-27 when Jesus gives her to be mother to John and John son to Mary.

This lone one minute conversation is all that the Bible gives us of Mary during the Passion. She is only a footnote. Yet in Gibson's movie she is portrayed as the leading lady if not the very star of the movie herself.

The studies, which I lead, never deal with the subject of Mary. While a main character in the movie, biblically through the Passion she plays a minor role. And it seems that the Protestants have turned a blind eye to all but what they want to see in this movie so the subject is never covered.

Thus my dilemma, Mary is the one almost everyone (male and female) identifies with in this movie and what they want to talk about. Mary is also a subject that Protestants have mostly avoided in the past and are only now starting to deal with as a result of the movie. Unfortunately for me, too slowly to have answers for those who have questions now. Don't get me wrong, I know the Protestant position on Mary, but without the study guides and sermons backing me up, I have to prove everything myself. And that can be a hard job trying to tell 28 people in two different groups that have fallen in love with the Mary in the movie, that all may not be as it appears.

[VRWC_minion]

Mary is the one almost everyone (male and female) identifies with in this movie and what they want to talk about

I must be a very poor writer. Let me rephrase my argument. MARY=MOTHERHOOD. Replace Mary for motherhood and then relook at Luke. You find motherhood at the outset and at the cross. Motherhood was a central part of Luke's message or he would not have included it as part of his passion story. The fact that women identify with Mary is because they identify with motherhood.

Luke see's it. Your participants see it. I agree the RC's overdo it but it is there. Its in Jesus's words.