Gibson Says He Has `Softened' Crucifixion Story in New Jesus Movie

Religion News Service ^ | August 13, 2003 | Kevin Eckstrom

[Agnes Heep]

The entire controversy is (and has) been spawned by the use of a simple, three-letter article, namely "the." I don't think there can be any doubt that "the" Jews didn't kill Jesus. However, I think it's equally obvious that certain Jews wanted him dead, and the Roman authority was only too willing to accommodate them. In fact, the Roman authority would have executed him regardless of what the locals might have thought. Their concern was the maintenance of order, while the Sanhedrin would have been scared to death of having the entire country ruined over the popular sedition fostered by a single man. If you don't believe this, mark the reaction of Josephus to the prospect of Roman retaliation nearly 40 years later. Jesus was put to death primarily because he was stirring up trouble. What's more, it appears that he knew this, and was actually tempting his fate.

[dennisw]

Hope ya'll don't turn on Mel now.

[dennisw]

In fact, the Roman authority would have executed him regardless of what the locals might have thought.......

Crucifixation was done to many Jews as way of execution. In fact was a favorite Roman Empire method to execute anyone who defied their rule. Jesus defied some Jews who were in a position of power. But he also defied and riled up the Romans who were the rulers of the day. Roman Empire power was unstoppable and demolished the Jewish Temple one generation later.

[Caipirabob]

IN AN EFFORT TO PLEASE SPECIAL INTERESTS GROUPS concerning the controversial release of the vanity-project/"HATE"-film "The Passion" based on the highly suspect material involving an "alleged" historical figure named "Jesus", Mel Gibson has removed all offensive references and depictions of Crucifixes, Jesus, Disciples, and the word "God". The Romans will be portrayed by GLSEN approved screen guild actors and the Jews by NEA/NAACP approved minorities in order to depict the diversity and inclusiveness of the groups at that time. The sub-titles will be read by a yet-unnamed Gay Episcipalian Cross-dressing Pedophile with a hairlip. Various references attesting to the accuracy and factual references within the Koran will be quoted throughout the film in order to make this a well-rounded fun filled-family event for all. Expect the film to be released at your local indoctrination center this Spring.

Well, you know this is what the Liberals are aiming for...

[ultima ratio]

Actually, I had already read that the line "His blood on us and on our children," was not in the rough version screened previously--so Mel hasn't changed anything substantial since he started these screenings. I think his judgment is sound regarding this. And I also see nothing wrong with labeling Simon of Cyrene a Jew--many in the audience might not have known this and it's worth knowing. The film will gain by these touches, not diminish. Nothing has changed, believe me, it's essentially the same movie. Mel is just trying to calm the religious furor and create the appropriate climate for its release.

When it is released, I predict this film will be a cinematic phenomenon--unlike any other movie in history. Since it requires no dubbing, it will be shown all around the world and feel just as authentic in the Philipines and in Brazil as it feels when we watch it here. Countless millions of Christians will see it--and will also keep on seeing it in the years ahead until it won't be possible to hear the Gospel on Palm Sunday without thinking of the images it evokes. This is the real blow to the ADL and to Hollywood--Mel Gibson has created a Christian Masterpiece.

[Longshanks]

Maybe Gibson needs a counter protest? I'm not going to watch the movie, now.

Don't be a fool. You need to reread the article and see it is nothing but fluff. None of the so-called "softenings" listed would make the film inaccurate. The article is liberal wishful thinking on the part of beliefnet.com.

[joesnuffy]

Revisionist History makers at work through intimidation

He pointed to Matthew 27:25, in which the Jewish mob calls for Jesus' blood "to be on us and on our children." "That's in the Gospel," he said. "It's not in our film."

I remember Mel claiming that he felt very compelled by God to make this film...so who is he compeled by to tame the film?...a spirit of Fear?...the devilish work of the ADL? Then why did he even bother?....

[wideawake]

I certainly won't.

[ultima ratio]

I don't agree with your view. He hasn't changed anything to suit anybody. The line you cite was not in the version shown at the screenings. The whole article is nonsense. Much is being made of very, very little.

[Northern Yankee]

I agree with your assessment. Mel has got a winner in this movie, and he will not compromise his faith to appease thosue who wish to seek the destruction of this film.

Let's allow this movie to speak for itself!

[Dirk McQuickly]

Jesus was crucified in Sweden -- I thought everyone knew that.

[HangWithMe]

"His Blood be upon us and our children"

Isn't that the point of it all?
The Lamb of God?
I plead His blood be upon me and my children daily.

[Xthe17th]

RATS! Guess I'll have to wait for the DVD "director's cut" to get the original and correct version.

[avg_freeper]

Perhaps instead of being crucified, Jesus could get a splinter in his finger. And at the end of the movie, instead of offering his life for our salvation, he and his disciples could go to Disneyland.

[Brian Allen]

<< If Jewish-Christian relations are healed, then what purpose would there ever be for the ADL?

Sowing seeds of dissent is therefore beneficial to the ADL leadership. >>

Although some of Dishonest Abe's ilk; who still believe that the death-worshipping, pagan-heathen, islamofascist-emulating, false-prophet, Hitler and his gang, were "Christians" -- and are extracting revenge on the entire Judeo-Christian Civilization; seriously need attitude adjustments [They couldn't do the Jewish People more harm if that was their intention in the first place -- THINKS: Now THERE is a novel idea!] I don't otherwise believe "Jewish-Christian relations" to be in need of healing.

Although the Jewish Nation does not have a mandate on luny-left-wing fringe dwelling opportunists who call themselves that which they are not and/or on other haters; there is not a single Christian on this Earth who does not love Judaism as the birthplace of his faith and of his Savior, there are few who are not passionate Zionists and there are millions who would fight until their last breath in defence of Greater Israel!

But you are right on about the cynycism inherent in [Dis]Honest Abe's ADL's sowing of dissent.

Feeds Abe pretty darned well. He and his wax fat -- and high on the hog!

Shalom Shalom -- Brian

[Paved Paradise]

The only version of this movie they're going to like is the one where Hitler and the SS are crucifying Jesus on the Cross (which of course they could change to the shape of a swastika).

[angkor]

This article is unsupported hokum. There's absolutely no fact in it supporting the headline, and it is a lie.

If you think carefully about the man who is Mel Gibson, and the kind of work that he's actually done over the last several years, you'd have to conclude that he's an individual of honesty, persistence, and integrity (Hollywood is still upset with the kids shooting redcoats in The Patriot).

Given that, I believe he'd rather burn the film reels in his backyard than to compromise one single iota on his religious or artistic integrity. I also think he's answering to one and only one authority on this project, and it sure isn't the ADL.

It'll come out exactly the way Gibson wants it, or it will not come out at all. Gibson can afford to burn the $25 million, and I believe he'd do it rather than to compromise his faith. Because that's certainly what this film is all about for him.

In the context of his faith, how do you think Gibson is viewing the criticisms and difficulties? Didn't Jesus Christ also suffer for bringing this message to the world?

There will be no compromise.

[Sloth]

"We believe we have softened the story compared to the way the Gospel has told it," Lauer said in an interview. He pointed to Matthew 27:25, in which the Jewish mob calls for Jesus' blood "to be on us and on our children." "That's in the Gospel," he said. "It's not in our film."

If this is true, I won't go.

[George W. Bush]

The bigger problem is that he 'softened' the resurrection which was the central fact of Christ's life.

[mhking]

will be clearly labeled a Jew in the film

What, they're gonna put a caption under him marked "JEW" each time he appears on camera?!?

I realize that Gibson has to placate those around him, but dumbing down this movie would set a bad precedent at best.