Posted on 03/07/2003 10:46:15 PM PST by Pharmboy
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A prominent Jewish leader on Friday asked actor Mel Gibson (news) to make certain that his new film on the last 12 hours in the life of Christ does not portray the Jews as collectively responsible for the crucifixion.
Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said he was concerned because an article to be published in the New York Times Magazine portrays Gibson as a traditionalist Catholic opposed to the reforms of Vatican (news - web sites) II.
Heir said, "Obviously, no one has seen 'The Passion' and I certainly have no problem with Mel Gibson's right to believe as he sees fit or make any movie he wants to. What concerns me, however is when I read that the film's purpose is to undo the changes made by Vatican II."
He said that Vatican conclave was convened to deal with several critical issues, including the rejection of the notion that the Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus.
"If the new film seeks to undo Vatican II ... it would unleash more of the scurrilous charges of deicide directed against the Jewish people, which took the Catholic Church 20 centuries to finally repudiate," he said.
Gibson is completing the self-financed film on the last 12 hours in the life of Christ and a friend of the Gibson family is quoted as telling the Times that Gibson will graphically portray the intense suffering of Christ, "perhaps as no film has done before." Gibson is directing the film.
The friend, Gary Giuffre, a traditionalist Catholic, also said that the film will lay the blame for the death of Christ where it belongs -- a reference that some traditionalists believe means the Jewish authorities who presided over his trial, the article said.
A spokesman for Gibson had no comment, saying he had not seen the article. Sources close to the actor said Gibson's religious views and those of his family were known.
Discussing his film in a recent TV interview, Gibson was asked whether his account might particularly upset Jews. He said, "It may. It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth."
Jewish leaders get their people riled up to be victim's and see anti-Semitism under every rock...stop it....there's no more anti-Semitism from Catholics to Jews than there is anti-Christian stuff from Jews to Christians.
The Chosen People should not feel picked on. GOD chose the Jewish people to send his Son to. HUGE PRIVILEGE I would say.
Much as I agree that Sadam must be taken out, I don't fault the Pope for trying to bring peace up until the end. Remember, back when the Bent one was bombing the Serbs back into the stone age (i.e. Legacy building). The pope petitioned for a cessation of hostilities, particularly during Holy Week. Of course Slick's response was "Hell No!!" or words to that effect. Of course at the same time we had to be sensitive during Ramadan.
The point is, that unlike the leftists coming out of the woodwork to protest this war, the Pope has been consistant in his calls for peace. I can respect that, just like I can respect a true conscientous objector. What frosts me is the same "peacenicks" had no problem when the impeached one was raining cruise missles down on Iraq and bombing aspirin factories to save his sorry political a$$. "It wasn't cool to protest that president."
Reads as though the author is an accusor. Let's see what was that Hebrew name for Accusor,..."HaSatan"
This keeps coming up. Jesus as Christ came here to be crucified. That was the purpose. In the face of that purpose, whatever human agency brought it about is moot. God preordained and was "responsible" for the entire sequence of events. End of issue. 
"...make certain that his new film on the last 12 hours in the life of Christ does not portray the Jews as collectively responsible for the crucifixion."
Considering the Abrahamic, Davidic, and Mosaic Covenants, it need to be well noted that the Jews did reject Jesus as Christ. The New Covenant now provides for all men, Jew and Gentile alike.
Perhaps it is better to say the Jews of the day, especially the Sanhedrin were fully liable for the death of Jesus Christ. Christ allowed himself to be taken and crucified by remaining obedient to the Father. Nevertheless, it was indeed the Jews who offered that sacrifice.
Perhaps this best exemplifies the protocol of proper sacrifice. Jesus held the royal title as the high priest and offered the Perfect Lamb remaining faithful and obedient to the Father. The active slaughter of the Lamb came at the hands of man, and just as liable as the centurions or Pilate, were those who were afforded the opportunity to allow Jesus, the Christ, to be released and instead chose Barrabas.
The holding of court at night to decide a capital charge by the Jewish authorities obviously was intentional as was the tone of accusation against Jesus from the last Supper onwards through the Ressurection.
If the meaning of Vatican II doesn't match the implication, then perhaps Gibson's film will help to clarify the issue.
I saw it in Los Angeles when it first came out. There were protestors marching IN FRONT OF theaters, bomb threats called IN to theaters, and security guards standing IN theaters. You still cannot RENT "Last Temptation........" at Blockbuster in Virginia.
Having also read the book..........My interpretation is that there is a bit of a culture shock attached to LAST TEMPTATION. Scorcece's and Kazantzakis's portrayal of Christ brings out the Human side of Christ more than is usually present in a Western interpretation. Kazantzakis's upbringing was Greek Orthodox so it's 'take' on the Gospels tends to be foreign to Protestant and Catholic sensibilities, besides being a contoversial piece of literature in it's own right.
I am looking forward to Mel's effort.
Since Jesus Christ was the Perfect Lamb, the Perfect Sacrifice, who was the priest making the offering?
Wow! I almost gagged on the cynicism in your Post.
Therefore, this business about the Jews murdering Jesus and to be condemed therefor is silly. God wrote the script and the actors played their parts.
God never prevented man's volition in the matter. Note Christ's lament when he rode into Jerusalem on the donkey and His people received Him not. The opportunity for the Jews to receive the Messaih did indeed exist. Continued suffering wasn't necessary at that point had the Jews received Him. A decision point was reached and the decision made by the Jews was a rejection of the Messiah.
Again on the cross, Jesus remained obedient to the Father, but I must admit I'm not certain that Jesus Christ knew if he was going to suffer the first death and at that point. One significant point was Jesus Christ's perfect obedience to the Father and His resultant Perfect Sacrifice. An adversary might argue that foreknowledge of this and lack of a decision point on Christ's behalf would eliminate any element of sacrifice.
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.