Mel Gibson Alters Script at Rabbi's Request

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/000748.html ^ | March 12, 2003

[joobers]

March 12, 2003 Mel Gibson Alters Script at Rabbi's Request (2003-03-12) -- Actor-producer Mel Gibson has granted a request from a prominent Los Angeles Rabbi to make certain that his movie on the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ doesn't portray the Jews of that time as collectively responsible for the crucifixion.

Mr. Gibson said he will also release a new version of "The Patriot" in which the British are not seen as collectively responsible for the American Revolution, and an edited version of "Braveheart" in which the King of England and his armies are portrayed more sympathetically.

Posted by Scott Ott | Donate via PayPal | Comments (76) | More News Satire | x

Email this entry to: Your email address: Message (optional):

[Corin Stormhands]

and I must've hit it again thinking it didn't post the first time!

Yeah, yeah. We all know you were trying to change your post after it was finished the first time...

[Ancesthntr]

"Bring us Barrabas!"

Sorry Rabbi, but that's pretty damning, if you ask me.

1) As pointed out, the film is done and this story is a spoof or a lie.

2) Assuming that the story is true, exactly how many people said "Bring us Barrabas"?

The answer to #2, again assuming that the story is true, is probably in the hundreds or low thousands. There were MILLIONS of Jews alive at the time (they comprised roughly 10% of the population of the entire Roman Empire, and 20% of the eastern part, to say nothing of the very substantial Jewish communities that existed in or near Babylon). So, explain to me how "that's pretty damning" for "the Jews."

Oh, and by the way, I've got another question: if every Jew in the crowd in question had asked to save the life of Barrabas, what exactly would be the crime? Before getting upset, put yourself in their minds - here's this guy claiming to be the Messiah or the King of the Jews, yet these people believe that he hasn't fulfilled the requirements of such a person as set forth in their religion. In other words, they would have believed that they were condemning a heretic. Aside from any question of whether they were correct or not (which we cannot answer, nor do I wish to even try), you have to deal with this reality - the worst that they (let alone other Jews alive at the time and not present, much less the descendants of all of the millions of Jews alive then) could possibly have been guilty of was an honest mistake. Somehow, I don't think that the most basic concepts of justice allow them, let alone the persecution of their descendants until the end of time - but that's just my humble opinion.

As with my post #18 (which you might also want to read), I'm not attacking your religious beliefs, only questioning your logic.

[Blessed]

Sorry Rabbi, but that's pretty damning, if you ask me.

No just someone using the Bible like a reference book.

The Bible says you killed Jesus not the Jews.

[Ancesthntr]

Correction to post #22:

Somehow, I don't think that the most basic concepts of justice allow them, let alone the persecution of their descendants until the end of time - but that's just my humble opinion.

should be

Somehow, I don't think that the most basic concepts of justice allow for the historical and religious condemnation of them or their fellow Jews who were alive at the time, let alone the unremitting persecution and vilification of their descendants until the end of time - but that's just my humble opinion.

[Sloth]

The chief priests, the elders, the teachers of the law and the Sanhedrin are named as the responsible ones, not the Jews of the time collectively

True, though there was still a good number of the common folks stirred up to shout "crucify him" and "release Barrabas".

[isom35]

Mel also said he would release a new version of Mad Max
in which he and Toecutter come to terms with their hostility toward each other; and a new version of Road Warrior in which Humongous politely asks for fuel, but
doesnt kill anyone.

[AnAmericanMother]

Amen.

Was ist die Ursach' aller solcher Plagen?
Ach, meine Sünden haben dich geschlagen!
Ich, ach Herr Jesu, habe dies verschuldet,
Was du erduldet.

A very free translation:

Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone thee.
'Twas I, Lord Jesus, I it was denied thee.
I crucified thee!

- Johann Heermann, Herzliebster Jesu

[onedoug]

I agree, and am happy too that so much of Christianity now realizes, and nurtures its Jewish heritage, which wasn't always historically the case.

[hopespringseternal]

Says you.

Of course your credibility is somewhat less than thousands of manuscripts dating back nearly two thousand years.

Prattle on, the only people listening will believe anything.

[AlGone2001]

While it is true that the those who killed Jesus were Jews, we must never let that be an excuse to be anti-Jewish.

It just so happens that many Jewish men who supported Him went to their own cross.

The cross should never be an us-against-them thing. While it is true that the cross by its very nature brings division in a physical sense, the real challenge is to rise above it and act by the Spirit of God.

So, while it is true tha Jesus was killed by Jews, He was also killed by my sin. I am not a Jew, but am a gentile, or Goy, as a Jew might refer to me.

One of the best ways to help Jews accept Jesus as the messiah is to have real dialoge with them. We must refrain from blaming them of the sins of their fathers.

In the New Testament writings we hear mention of the fruit of the Spirit. Being right is not a fruit, but being kind is. I am not suggesting that anyone change the words of the bible, or water them down. In fact, I hope the text of the movie comes directly from the scriptures. What I do hope is that my Christian brothers stop slamming Jewish people for what their fathers did. Any of us could have drove those nails.

We need to simply tell them the truth about who Jesus is, and love them. How hard is that?

[Spiff]

The Bible says you killed Jesus not the Jews.

I know that it was the Romans that drove the nails. But it was the Jews at that time and place that wanted him crucified. Does that mean that Jews today share some sort of complicity? No. Is it anti-semetic to mention the historical situation and the complicity of the Jews at the time? No.

I, however, did not kill Jesus. I do, however, add to his suffering, his atonement for sin, when I myself sin.

[beelzepug]

Nice to see that someone made this one, most important, point. Thank you.

[mdmathis6]

"Well, it's obvious (IMHO) that this is exactly what the gospel writers did. I think there is very little doubt that Jesus was tried, convicted and executed exclusively by the Romans; and the notion that a Roman governor publicly proclaimed him innocent, washed his hands, and all that, and then proceeded with the execution, is patent nonsense.

The unvarnished truth, however, was inconvenient for the new Christian religion, so it wrote a bit of "spin" into the Gospels: "No, Mr. Roman, we don't blame YOU for killing our God"


Upon what ancient text or source do you base this assessment? You think the founders of Christianity had that kind of prescience that they would deliberately falsify what really happened...to get "truth" out so that certain groups in the future would not be "offended"? You make it sound like Goebbels or other professional 20th and 21st century spin meisters had been around for the founding of Christianity.

The whole World is blamed for the crucifixion. More of a truth, Christ deliberately "laid his life down" for all men. The people of that era and the main players were just bit players on a stage that included a spiritual battle to destroy evil. Christ stated to Pilate that those who delivered him to Pilate "had the greater sin".

Roman governors were given to symbolic public flourishes, Pilate indeed may have "washed his hands" of Christ's blood, especially after the San Hedrin and many in the crowd declared, in a deliciously ironic and historically Hebrew way.."His blood be upon us and our children", which is a way of saying.."We accept the responsibility for his death!" The irony is, that His blood is indeed "laid on us".

That Pilate understood the culture and had some insight as to what drove it, can be noted by his placement of the inscription "King of the Jews" in three languages on the cross of Jesus. When the Priests asked that the language be changed to "He SAID he was the King of the Jews", Pilate refused. Pilate was known for ruthlessness and sarcasm played a big part of that. To do what he did with the inscription, before the pass-over no less, would insult the San Hedrin and insult them deeply in a way that they could not retaliate against. He gave them their sacrifice, but he would not allow them a clean triumph, he wanted this crucifixion to stick in their craw!

Being educated in Roman law, he could see the implicit unfairness of what was happening to an innocent man, but he was also charged with keeping order as well as trying to keep his own neck off the imperial chopping block. The Jewish leaders threatened to go to the Emperor charging that Pilate was allowing a man, who claimed to be king, to stay alive in direct challenge to imperial authority. Judea had a special status in the Roman Empire, that no other provinces had. Pilate knew this, and this strange troika of Jewish religion, and Pagan politics must have been a real night-mare to manage. (In the end, sorry dude, I think you are a good man, but I have the empire, province and my own neck to think about...nothing personal, say hello to Pluto for me).

Pilate was trapped in a kind of historical/temporal/ spiritual limbo that he could see no escape from other than setting the man free or killing him. His wife, according to the Bible certainly sensed it, warning Pilate to "have nothing to do with this man, for I have been greatly troubled by him" In the end, Pilate had him killed, thus unleashing Christianity!

[Elliott Jackalope]

I don't understand why it is so important for religion in general, and Christianity in particular, to condemn people for crimes committed before they were born. Between the doctrine of "original sin" and "we are all guilty for crucifying Christ", I find myself quite repelled indeed from Christianity. Why should I want to participate in a religion that condemns me for things I didn't do? Why should I be willing to take on guilt for crimes committed eons before I was born?

[Alouette]

I tried to look up the original story in Yahoo News. Even though a lot of (stupid, big-mouth) rabbis have complained (like, they really think this is the worst problem facing Jews today), no one actually persuaded Mel Gibson to change the script.

Oh, then I looked at the bottom of the screen. This story is bogus, this site is a parody site like BSNN or The Onion. Duh.

[rwfromkansas]

Thank goodness this is a joke.

I just about had a coronary.

[beelzepug]

Just as many people will yell "Jump!" to some poor slob on a ledge, without giving much thought to what they are doing.

[Cultural Jihad]

Every post you've made has been concering this film and the Jewish community. Now we see you posting this sort of drivel.

[thulldud]

Why should I want to participate in a religion that condemns me for things I didn't do?

No way you will be haled up for things you didn't do. "Original sin" does not imply that.

[DannyTN]

"Why should I want to participate in a religion that condemns me for things I didn't do?"

No way will you be condemned for things other people did.

What you will be condemned for are things you did that you shouldn't have and things you didn't do that you should have. The didn't do's are just like the woman recently who didn't seek help for the man in her windshield was condemned for murder because she didn't seek help.

In fact scripture pronounces you condemned already. God has made a pardon available, but you have to be willing to accept it.