Critics say Gibson film mimics a hateful book

Detroit Freepress ^ | February 19, 2004 | David Crumm

[madison10]

Despite Mel Gibson's effort to disavow any anti-Jewish influence in his film about Jesus' death, his critics are firing back with fresh evidence that the movie closely follows an anti-Jewish book by a 19th-Century German nun.

In a nationally televised interview this week, Gibson said he based his violent portrayal of Jesus' torture and crucifixion on the Bible. He acknowledged that he has read Anne Catherine Emmerich's 1833 book about Jesus' death, but said he was unaware of anti-Jewish references in it.

[ArrogantBustard]

We know Jews are not the only victims of genocide. Most recently it happened to the Tutsis and the world watched. Rhetoric that leads to genocide and terrorism is worse than Holocaust Denial but they are cousins.

That's exactly what I had in mind. I'm glad you understood; many do not.

[af_vet_1981]

There are a lot more of us than you are willing to acknowledge.

I'm willing to acknowledge every single one of you.

I'm not willing to accept Hutton Gibson's Holocaust Denial and Antisemitism and the lack of rebuke of it by Mel Gibson. I expect more from Mel.

[ArrogantBustard]

Check out Rather I think he's trying to scare Jews into sending him money.

check out this

[af_vet_1981]

BTW, did you know that every year, every faithful Catholic everywhere in the world hears the Passion narrative, in its entirety, at least twice per year, at church?

I do not fear faithful Catholics. They are not responsible for the sins and failings of their forebears. They should at least acknowledge them though. Faithful Catholics know that antisemitism is sin. They know that Yeshua of Nazareth and Miriam his mother are Jews according to the flesh. The noblest of them would lay down their own lives to save those of the least of Yeshua and Miriam's brethren. I have to believe this. I will believe this.

[carton253]

You are wrong...

Mel isn't responsible for his father. Hutton's views belong to Hutton. Mel owes you nothihg... He certainly doesn't owe you a public rebuke of his father.

[StolarStorm]

Wow! That's an org I could belong too!

[Jaded]

Yeah, but read the foot notes. According to Jewish Law:

Deuteronomy 25
1 When men have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty. 2 If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down and have him flogged in his presence with the number of lashes his crime deserves, 3 but he must not give him more than forty lashes. If he is flogged more than that, your brother will be degraded in your eyes.

Wonder how much coverage there will be next Wednesday. The local theater is sold out for the 25th on 2 screens.

[Tempest]

Oh now this whole thing is getting rather silly.

[StolarStorm]

Exactly. It's a sin to rebuke one's own parents, in the Jewish faith as well. HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER. As a man of strong faith, Mel can't rebuke him even if he disagrees with him.

Sad that some are using a movie to drive a wedge among the faithful (Jews and Christians). I'm sure the Islamofascists yip with joy every time Abe Foxman and other baiters open their mouths.

[ArrogantBustard]

The noblest of them would lay down their own lives to save those of the least of Yeshua and Miriam's brethren. I have to believe this.

You should believe it ... it's not just a pious hope, it's an historical fact. The Catholic monasteries, convents, churches, and private homes of continental Europe took in and provided forged papers for as many Jews as they could, during WWII. Sometimes, they tried to provide cover for too many Jews and got busted by the Gestapo. In such cases the lot, Catholic and Jew alike ended up in the camps. Meanwhile, the hierarchy had to delicately parse their words: Say too much, and the Nazis get even more riled up than usual, say too little and your message doesn't get out.

[ArrogantBustard]

They even let Gentiles join ... jolly decent of them, I think.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

In addition, you don't see anyone in the Jewish community standing up and saying that Mr. Foxman or the ADL is incorrect in the assertion that Christianity is an Anti-Semitic religion.

To be fair, Micheal Medved, Dennis Prager, and a Rabbi friend of Medved have fully condemned the shortsighted comments of the ADL. This is coming down to ideology, the liberal, secular Jews don't like their own religion, let alone trust the Christians. But there are conservative Jews out there who don't have a voice in the mainstream media.

P.S. (I don't like af_vet's pretentios inuendo's of anti-semitism either.)

[Clintons a commie]

According to the link someone provided above to Emmerich's book, there is a bridge scene (p. 135), but most of us don't know if the exact "bridge scene" is in the movie.

Yes, the bridge sequence is in Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich's book. I don't see anything anti-semitic about it, or unscriptural.

[Ann Archy]

Liberals think good is bad...bad is good...black is white...white is black..bu EVERYTHING is GRAY!!

[agrace]

cicero's_son, reconsidering your support of Israel would be misdirected and counterproductive. Many of the liberal Jews to whom you refer are themselves not particularly Zionist, or are even pro-Palestinian, so they have no use for Christian support of Israel and might even welcome your reaction.

And so, af_vet_1981, with that in mind, your comment that "this is what the liberal Jews warned us would happen" to me seems like self-fulfilled prophecy; ie liberal Jews maybe foment this reaction, unintentionally or otherwise.

And I can imagine how difficult it must be for many Jews - liberal or conservative - to trust anyone. Exclusivity has been a means to aid your survival throughout the centuries. So I empathize with your perspective.

However, as a Zionist Christian, I can't imagine changing my views about Israel for any reason. My support for you is God-given and spiritually unconditional. I believe I speak for most evangelicals as well.

[atomic conspiracy]

The hideous disease of anti-semitism has never been more thoroughly and wholeheartedly repudiated and condemned than it is in the American Heartland today.

Well said, and it gets to the heart of the matter. The Left, with the help of its dhimmified shills at ADL, has seized this opportunity to drive a wedge between Jews and conservative Christians. It would also serve to divert attention from the Left's unstinting support for the real Jew-hating, Jew-killing antisemites of the world, the Palestinian terrorists and other Muslim killer-cultists.

I can't help but think that there is also some projection in this manufactured controversy. Rank and file Lefties, you see, often base their own view of issues and events on sweeping generalizations drawn from Hollywood movies: Platoon is a primary source for their knowledge of the Vietnam War, for instance; MASH for the Korean War, Vanished for the 1973 anti-Communist uprising in Chle, The China Syndrome for nuclear power. Naturally, they would assume that others do likewise.

[agrace]

Wonderful post.

[Savage Beast]

Yes, the Left cherishes its illusions. They hate anyone who threatens them.

If they were not deluded, they wouldn't be "Liberals" in the first place.

The very word "Liberal" is delusion. "Liberalism" is the opposite of liberalism.

[atomic conspiracy]

The Gibson family's emigration from upstate New York to Australia in the 1960s was predicated on Hutton Gibson's belief that the Vietnam War was an anti-Catholic war, an opinion based on the CIA's involvement in the assassination of South Vietnam's Catholic President Diem.

At the time, Diem was the arch-enemy of Vietnam's Communists. He was waging war against them, as the United States did both then and later. It is an outrageous distortion of history and logic to pretend that this action somehow defined the sides in the war.

Interestingly enough, there was a very similar distortion in one of Mel's movies, The Year of Living Dangerously. This portrayed the military campaign against Indonesia's Communists as being conducted on behalf of the corrupt leader Sukarno. The truth was almost the direct opposite; Sukarno had encouraged and supported the Communists and was in conflict with his own military over this policy. When the Reds attempted to seize complete power, the Army seized the opportunity to get rid of them, and got rid of Sukarno himself not long afterward.

[sully777]

Paul writes, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair (Greek *komao* tresses of long hair), it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (I Corinthians 11:14 KJV).

History shows that the style of Christ's day was the Roman haircut, similar to the conservative haircut of today. The Jews followed the custom as Paul, a prominent member of the Sanhedrin, attests in scripture.

Individuals in the Old Testament and New Testament that wore their hair long were those taking Nazarite vows. A Nazarite vow lasted a relatively short period of time with the exception of Samson who was commanded by God to keep his hair. Nazarites should not to be confused with Nazarenes, people from region surrounding the city of Nazareth. Yes, that point tends to confuse much like the number of different people named Joseph, John, Abimilech, and Hadad tends to confuse. Anyway, men wore their hair short. Assyrian reliefs show tribute paying Israelites wearing short hair, much like the Roman cut.

BTW, Absalom wore his hair long and it was noted that he fancied himself highly. The Bible also shows the dangers of long hair in battle as Absalom was clotheslined by his beautiful tresses stuck in the tree. The Bible is filled with examples of this type of subtle yet stinging sense of irony. Today, they call this dark comedy.

Back to Jesus. Christ blended in the crowd throughout the gospels. If Christ looked like the hippie pretty boy pictured by artists, He would have stuck out like a sore thumb: "He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him" (Isaiah 53:2 KJV). It was Christ's words and deeds that made him stand apart, not His looks. Remember, Judas had to kiss Jesus to point him out to the other guys. I imagine the officers saying, "This the guy? Thanks Judas."

Hope that helps clarify my comments.