Jews blamed more for death of Christ after Passion

The percentage of Americans who say Jews were responsible for Christ's death is rising according to a poll taken since the release of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ."

The poll released by the Pew Research Center in Washington is the first statistical evidence that the film's box-office success may be associated with an increase in anti-Jewish feeling, although social scientists cautioned that cause and effect are not clear.

As Christians prepare to celebrate Easter week and the Jewish holiday of Passover also approaches, the poll could sharpen the focus on what some perceive as the film's anti-Semitism.

Some say the film unfairly portrays the role of Jews in Jesus' death, while Gibson and others insist the film is not anti-Semitic and is faithful to Gospel accounts. A judge in France also ruled that the biblical text was not manipulated in the film but a catholic Bishop suggesting that it presented an "incomplete theological picture".

In a random telephone survey of 1,703 adults, 26 percent said Jews were responsible for Christ's death, up from 19 percent in an ABC News poll that asked the same question in 1997.

The increase was especially pronounced among two groups. The portion of people younger than 30 who say Jews were responsible for killing Jesus has approximately tripled, from 10 percent in 1997 to 34 percent today. The portion of African Americans who hold that view doubled, from 21 percent to 42 percent.

The Pew poll found a statistical link between Gibson's film and belief that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. But the correlation is not simply that a relatively large proportion of those who have seen the film hold Jews responsible. That view is also somewhat more common among those who plan to see the film than in the general public.

Researchers therefore say that it is unclear whether the change in attitudes is down to the film or the publicity surrounding it.

While attitudes toward Jewish responsibility are changing, the Pew poll found that Americans' views of the Crucifixion generally are not. Forty percent say the Bible is the literal word of God, about the same proportion as in 1996. Ninety-two percent believe that Jesus died on the cross, and 83 percent believe that Jesus rose from the dead - both essentially unchanged since 1997.

A poll last week suggested that people in the US are reading the Bible more as a result of the film. It also said 75% of people believe that the film was "very close" to the Bible's account of Jesus' death. 15 percent responded "somewhat close" and five percent answered "not close at all."

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Ekklesia

Suppose Caiaphas and the Pharisees had got it right? What would have happened then? The Romans would have had a full scale insurrection on their hands. What do you suppose they would have done then?

Whether or not Rome had a "right" to rule Judea is a totally different issue. However, once Rome had decided that it had a right to occupy Judea, it behooved Rome to let Judea know that the Roman Governor and not the local highest ranking cleric was the individual with the last word.

In Iraq, we are now in a similar situation with cleric al Sadr demanding that he be given control of the future Iraqi Defense ministry or else he will have his thousands of followers attack Coalition occupation forces and bring about full scale insurrection.

Appeasement never works. It just emboldens your opponent as we saw on Sunday. Sadr chose the Spanish garrison as his point of attack. The Spaniards killed 20 of them and wounded another 200 but the point is that al Sadr expected the Spanish military to roll over as the Spanish civilian voters did.

What the Romans would have done faced with an actual full scale insurrection is seen in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

The test of true power, however, is not only to posses actual power but also to never let your opponent doubt that you not only have the power but also the will to utterly destroy him if you so choose. As long as that course is chosen over apeasement, you will not only win if you have to fight but will often not even have to fight at all.

Here is an example of a war that the Roman Republic won strictly by the fear and respect it instilled in it's enemies.

In 168 B.C., Antiochus IV invaded Egypt, a Roman ally. The Roman Senate voted to support their ally and sent a Roman Ambassador, Popillus Laenos to instruct Antiochus to withdraw from Egypt.

Unarmed, the Roman Ambassador met Antiochus at the outskirts of Alexandria and read the Roman Senate's demand that he withdraw from Egypt. Antiochus pompously declared that he was the mighty King of Syria, that he could not be pushed around, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Popillus calmly listened to the Syrian King's diatribe and then took his walking staff and drew a circle in the sand around Antiochus. Popillus then said, "Do not step out of that circle until you give me an answer to take back to the Senate and People of Rome."

After a stunned silence, Antiochus IV then declared, "I will do as the Senate and People of Rome request."

Antiochus IV withdrew his army from Egypt and the war was over.

In my opinion, that was the Roman Republic's Finest Two And A Half Minutes.

Our Heavenly Father divorced Israel

And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first.
And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.
And it shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them: and they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and for all the prosperity that I procure unto it.
Thus saith the LORD; Again there shall be heard in this place, which ye say shall be desolate without man and without beast, even in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, that are desolate, without man, and without inhabitant, and without beast,
The voice of joy, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the voice of them that shall say, Praise the LORD of hosts: for the LORD is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: and of them that shall bring the sacrifice of praise into the house of the LORD. For I will cause to return the captivity of the land, as at the first, saith the LORD.
Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Again in this place, which is desolate without man and without beast, and in all the cities thereof, shall be an habitation of shepherds causing their flocks to lie down.
In the cities of the mountains, in the cities of the vale, and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, shall the flocks pass again under the hands of him that telleth them, saith the LORD.
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.
In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.
For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying,
Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying,
Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.
Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

I notice you didn't answer Joanie-f's answer to you above. Don't you have one?

Ok. if it makes you feel better....

It is this kind of response that leads to genuine anti-Semitism. OH? You are taking pieces of scripture out of context and extrapolating their meaning to suit your apparent purposes. I am?

The crowd in Jerusalem that demanded Christ’s crucifixion did not in any way represent the Jews of the city of Jerusalem and its environs. They were a relatively small crowd (Oh? how do you know?) of people who had been purposefully rounded up by the Sanhedrin in order to silence, and eventually put to death, the one Man who was undermining their strangle-hold power in Jerusalem and beyond. (Why were there so many people in town?)

Why on earth do you think Caiaphas and his cadre so desperately feared this man? They feared His influence for four main reasons:

(1) Jesus was an itinerant preacher who was engendering ever more receptiveness to His teachings from the Jewish population. He was not a priest, a scribe, or a Pharisee, and yet so many people [Jews] were listening to, and beginning to follow, His teachings. Many of them were beginning to believe that He was indeed the Messiah. (WHY?)

(2) He performed miracles, such as curing the blind and raising people from the dead. (Not according to SOME on this thread)

(3) He spoke against the hypocrisy of the very same high priests, scribes and Pharisees who were now calling for His crucifixion.

(4) He sometimes did things that were forbidden by Pharisee law, such as healing on the Sabbath.

To extrapolate the politically-motivated hatred exhibited by these high priests and hypocrites and lay blame for the death of Christ on an entire people (when the allegiance to Him of so many of those very people was the reason for the Sanhedrin’s fear) is ludicrous. (blame Moses - HE certainly lumped them all together. Better yet, blame GOD! HE sure lumped them together [or else our record of Moses' words is a lie])

Large numbers of Jews openly wept along the road to Calvary as Christ passed by them. Veronica offered Him water. (in the 19th chapter of MARK?) Simon of Cyrene helped Him to carry the cross and defended Him against the Roman lashes.

We also cannot blame the Jews for His death for the simple reason that His death was foretold many centuries before through the prophet Isaiah. You yourself excerpted a few such scripture verses. So, in that sense, it was an inevitability. And, if one would want to take that even a step further, since He died for your and my sins, in a roundabout way, we are just as responsible (Uh... I never said we we're not) – in a passive way – for His death as those relative few who so brutally called for His crucifixion.

Although I am a Protestant, the Catholic catechism contains an excerpt that I believe to be a beautiful description of who is really responsible for Jesus’ death. It reads, in part:

We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for He is in them) and hold Him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. (I think this sentence is inaccurate.)

Here is where this CONCEPT comes from...
Hebrews 6:3-6
4. It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,
5. who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age,
6. if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, ‘None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.’ We, however, profess to know Him. And when we deny Him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on Him.

So, by blaming the Jews alone for Christ’s death, (Ah... some folks have INFERED alone; I did not say that. For if one can claim that only a FEW Jews were responsible for HIS death; then they are saying that I am not! [can't have it both ways...]) we would in effect be saying, ‘Jesus did not die to cleanse me from my sins. He died because of those vile, vicious people over there ... back then.’ A Christian, by definition, acknowledges that Christ’s purpose in taking on human form was to die as He did … for us. How then can a Christian turn around and lay blame for that death on another group of people? Such behavior smacks of both scapegoating and religious hypocrisy. For Christians, the truth is that all sinners were the authors of Christ’s Passion.

As for your continued references to the later persecutions of Paul by other Jews, once again you are confusing a few [with political motives] with a people. And you are also refusing to recognize those few who were used as simple tools to fulfill yet more prophesy. Christ Himself, both in the movie and countless times in scripture, warns His followers that they will continue to suffer persecution. Who among His later apostles was more faithful than Paul, the author of most of the books of the New Testament?

To take, as you have, scriptural accounts of the crucifixion of Christ, and the persecution of Paul, by a handful of Jewish leaders who were generally driven by political motives and assert that the Jewish people in general are to be held responsible for the (prophesied) results – or, worse yet, to label their actions as ‘always wanting to kill someone’ is the kind of behavior that plants the kinds of anti-Semitic seeds that breed unfounded (oh?) hatred. Even your own excerpt from Acts 23 reads that ‘more than forty men were involved in this plot [to kill Paul]’ You neglected to print that portion in bold. (But, I DID include it...) Nor did you comment that forty men [no doubt under orders from the high priests] does not a people make. Once again, it was the Sanhedrin that feared Paul’s teachings and the inroads they were making as regards their power among the Jewish people in general. (It only takes ONE to kill another: why so MANY?)

This movie has been unfairly accused of doing what you are at least intimating in your own post. Where the movie is concerned, the accusation is unfounded.

~ joanie

If the JEWS, as a NATION, were so lovey-dovey to Christ, where were THEY at the CROSS?

Why didn't the NON-few overwhelm the Romans and 'save' Jesus?

If the JEWS, as a NATION, were so NON-quilty, why was it the GENTILES that took the message to the WORLD???

A 'true' Christian would THANK the Jews (few, many or a Nation) for 'killing' the Savior! For without HIS death (and subsequent resurrection) we would HAVE no 'savior', but merely a man with some nice teachings.

Jesus croaking from old age would not accomplish the PLAN that was in place 'before the begining of time'. Only a Perfect Lamb would be an acceptable sacrifice - no spots: no blemishes. And a sacrifice was ALWAYS killed by the priests........

Our Heavenly Father divorced Israel

"And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first.
And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.
And it shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them: and they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and for all the prosperity that I procure unto it.
Thus saith the LORD; Again there shall be heard in this place, which ye say shall be desolate without man and without beast, even in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, that are desolate, without man, and without inhabitant, and without beast,
The voice of joy, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the voice of them that shall say, Praise the LORD of hosts: for the LORD is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: and of them that shall bring the sacrifice of praise into the house of the LORD. For I will cause to return the captivity of the land, as at the first, saith the LORD.
Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Again in this place, which is desolate without man and without beast, and in all the cities thereof, shall be an habitation of shepherds causing their flocks to lie down.
In the cities of the mountains, in the cities of the vale, and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, shall the flocks pass again under the hands of him that telleth them, saith the LORD.
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.
In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.
For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying,
Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying,
Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.
Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them."

Jeremiah 33:7-26 YET Future, The Branch, is Christ, and Christ is the Bridegroom and He has not returned. The "spiritual" wedding has not occurred.

ICorinthians 11:1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.

2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

3. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled (holy seduced) Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Thanks (I think) for the ping, Charlie. :)

Elsie, it's difficult to debate someone who employs two sets of rules. You question me regarding my statement 'The crowd in Jerusalem that demanded Christ's crucifixion did not in any way represent the Jews of the city of Jerusalem and its environs. They were a relatively small crowd.' [You say, 'How do you know?'] And then, in the next breath, you ask 'Why were there so many people in town?' referring to the same crowd. I will respond in kind: How do you know how many people there were?

Mark 14:53 reads, 'They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together.'

This assemblage took place immediately after Jesus' arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. Is it not quite amazing that all of the religious leaders (high priests, scribes, leaders of the Pharisees) are already assembled? And that a crowd had gathered in what appears to be a matter of minutes? Christ's arrest and speedy trial was not simply a whim motivated by opportunity, but was, instead, a pre-planned and perfectly executed plot.

And the crowd? Do you truly believe that it represented the Jewish people? Or is it much more logical that it was a small group of pawns whose actions were orchestrated by the Sanhedrin so as to pressure Pilate into killing the One who threatened their power?

Only five days before, Christ had entered Jerusalem triumphantly, greeted by cheering throngs of Jews who loved Him. Those cheering throngs still loved Him, but were hiding in the shadows, fearing for their lives, because the power of the Sanhedrin (and their orchestrated crowd) ruled the day.

You responded to my observation that Veronica offered Him water with: in the 19th chapter of MARK?.

Are you the author of the statement, 'By their sarcasm ye shall know them'? (in reference to Christians). Are you familiar with James 3's description of the negative power of the tongue?

I spent a few paragraphs last night attempting to refute some of your arguments and I don't believe I once reverted to sarcasm in doing so. Do you believe that particular hostile weapon has any place in Christian debate?

Let's set aside the sarcasm and let's assume that we are both aware that there is no 19th chapter of Mark.

The subject of this thread is whether 'The Passion' incites anti-Semitism. In 'The Passion' Veronica does indeed offer Christ water on the Via Dolorosa. Veronica was a Jew. Veronica was showing compassion to 'her Lord' [as she referred to Him in the movie].

No, her actions are not recorded in scripture. But do you not believe that there were some occurrences during that fateful day that were not transcribed in the gospels? The story of Veronica is common and has been retold and celebrated throughout the ages.

Veronica's veil (with which she wiped his blood-stained face, as so beautifully depicted in 'The Passion') has been seen and venerated by many people. Some believe she kept the veil and discovered that it possessed curative properties. It is also believed, by many, that Roman Emperor Tiberius was offered the veil to cure an illness, and it was subsequently left in the possession of Pope Clement, and then his successors.

In the fourth century, many church documents referred to the existence of the veil, and in 1300 it was publicly displayed in Rome. It has been described as being made of extremely thin fabric with an image of a face on both sides – eyes wide open, terrible suffering apparent, many smears of blood. Slightly similar to descriptions of the Shroud of Turin, whose imprints would have been made shortly thereafter.

In the early 1600s Pope Paul V demolished the chapel in which the veil was kept when he rebuilt St. Peter's Basilica. Some believe the veil was stolen at that time. But today, next to the main altar in St. Peter's Basilica, there is a statue of Veronica whose inscription in Latin states that the veil is preserved within. Whether it is or not, we do not know.

So, yes, 'The Passion' portrayed Veronica (and her deeply compassionate wiping of Jesus' bloody face with her veil – as well as His deeply appreciative grasping of her kind hand). Scripture does not mention her action. But much word-of-mouth about her interaction with Christ on that day, as well as countless witnesses to the veil's existence, strongly suggest that the portrayal was as accurate as we can determine.

But no, it is not described in the nonesixtent 19th chaper of the book of Mark. </ your sarcasm >

You responded to my observation 'To extrapolate the politically-motivated hatred exhibited by these high priests and hypocrites and lay blame for the death of Christ on an entire people (when the allegiance to Him of so many of those very people was the reason for the Sanhedrin's fear) is ludicrous' by saying: 'Blame Moses - HE certainly lumped them all together. Better yet, blame GOD! HE sure lumped them together.'

What exactly is your point here? Moses led the Jews out of Egypt, delivered them the Ten Commandments, wandered with them for forty years in the wilderness, and prepared them to enter the land of Canaan. And, because he referred to them as a people (which of course he would, since he was chosen by God to free 'His chosen people'), you are leaping to the conclusion that referring to Jews, as a people, in any argument [such as being the murderers of Christ] is therefore legitimate? If that is your reasoning, it represents an immeasurable, borderline irrational, leap of logic. Hitler would have loved that particular leap. Do you blame all Iraqis for the murder and mutilation of the four American contractors in Falluja last week?

Not expecting a response from you. One apparently wasn’t forthcoming this time until Steve and Charlie coaxed it out of you. (Thanks for last time, fellows. But this time it's probably better to just let it lie.) You and I appear to be of two entirely different mindsets, Elise. And we embrace two entirely different definitions of debate/dialogue.

~ joanie

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.