Critics say Gibson film mimics a hateful book

Detroit Freepress ^ | February 19, 2004 | David Crumm

[Dr._Joseph_Warren]

Why does Israel always insist the relationship must be one way???

Americans must not question Israeli policy so as not to offend Israel.

Catholics promoting their faith via movies are accused of antisemitism.

If Christians question Jewish opinion they are accused of "turning their back on Jews and Israel".

At what point do we stop coddling these people?

Ironically, the JDL has done more to promote Gibson's film than any advertising campaign could ever do.

[af_vet_1981]

I wonder what you would say if Mel put a rape scene in the film.

[af_vet_1981]

Honestly, newbie, I couldn't care less whether you "trust" me or not.

I thought as much. Therefore there is nothing you have to say that is worth listening to.

[cicero's_son]

Trust me, the feeling is mutual.

I can't help but notice, though, that you refuse to answer the questions...and others notice it as well.

[madison10]

Please read this review before deciding what Mel did or did not include from this text.

Awesome review. Thanks for the link! This was good:

We also see the high priest Caiaphas watching the scourging — not sadistically reveling in the spectacle of Jesus’ sufferings, but clearly troubled, finding it painful to watch.

Significantly, this humanizing touch in Caiaphas’s characterization comes neither from the gospels, nor from sources such as Sr. Emmerich, but is original to the film. In fact, Sr. Emmerich’s account includes a strikingly different account of the Jewish onlookers during the scourging: She depicts Jewish leaders paying the Roman soldiers and plying them with drink to induce them to even more brutality. Gibson’s film not only omits this unsavory flourish, but goes in the opposite direction, giving a humanizing detail not found in the gospels.

[Just mythoughts]

As the poster earlier stated "This is what the liberal Jews warned us would happen. They said the RightWing or Conservative Christian supporters could not be trusted, that they would eventually turn on Israel and the Jewish people when their religious views were _challenged or not accepted_."

Note "were challenged or not accepted". Exactly what is the challenge or not accepted speak to. What are liberals in general doing each and every day. Look in San Francisco, removing "God" from pledge, Removal of Ten Commandments. Standing on the Senate floor "accusing" President Bush of being a LIAR. Voting for a war and then after the war begins refuse to vote to fund those sent to fight the war. The list is long about "CHALLENGE AND NOT ACCEPTED".

As it is written these things need be. While Christians know what is required to be blessed we must remember the protection given Daniel when thrown in the lions den and those children in the firey furnace.

Our Heavenly Father protects his own, stay in His word, prayer, and take a stand against these "Challenges".

[ArrogantBustard]

Anti-semitism must be completely repudiated and condemned in no uncertain terms.

Depends on what you mean by "anti-semitism".

If you mean irrational hatred and paranoid fear of Jews (See Hitler, Adolph and Stalin, Josef for examples), I agree with you.

If you mean saying and doing things that irritate professional victims like Abe Foxman and Schmuely Boteach, and at which they willy-nilly hurl charges of "antisemitism", then I must disagree. I have no respect for these folks, or their organisations, or their opinions. Indeed, they must be repudiated and condemned in no uncertain terms. They distract from real cases of religious or racial bigotry.

[Sofa King]

The "hateful book" they're really talking about is the Bible. They just can't stand it.

[StolarStorm]

I've read your countless posts on this topic. It seems to me that your primary goal here is to incite and goad. If I'm wrong what is it that you want? Do you want the movie stopped? Do you want christianity to repudiate it's own basis of belief (the new testament)? Do you want christains to never make a movie portraying anything about their faith? Seriously, what do you want?

[Texas2step]

Awesome review.

I wish someone would post it as it's own thread. Alas, I haven't the time to do the formating required.

[af_vet_1981]

I've read your countless posts on this topic. It seems to me that your primary goal here is to incite and goad.

That's odd. I've read your posts before too. I seem to remember something about them with respect to Jews and Israel. Do you take any public positions regarding Jews and Israel ?

[af_vet_1981]

Depends on what you mean by "anti-semitism".

Hutton Gibson's published comments, interviews, and books.

[ZinGirl]

bump for later reading...

[ArrogantBustard]

HG is a nut and a crank; paranoid and delusional irrationally fearful of Jews. I've no use for him, except that he gave us Mel Gibson.

Now, do you support or condemn the published comments and interviews of Abe Foxman, Schmuely Boteach, and James Rudin? Your credibility hangs by a thread.

[carton253]

Next time...could you pick another color. That yellow is hard to read. Thank you.

[aBootes]

John Dominic Crossan, a Catholic Bible scholar and author based in Florida, said Wednesday that he... plans to be one of the leading voices criticizing "The Passion of the Christ

In which case, I am for this movie, sight unseen.

[AmishDude]

This is the second time I've seen this "Crossan" guy quoted in a "Passion" story. It seems that Gibson's "critics" are more singular than plural.

[StolarStorm]

Again, you are simply trying to incite and goad. Why? Many here are simply trying to discuss the issue with you honestly and from their heart, and yet you cast aspersions on their characters.

BTW I support Israel and love the Jews. I don't always agree with Israel government actions from time to time... ie Pollard. But that's my right and I'm sure many Israeli citizens don't always agree with their governments activities either.

[sully777]

Gibson was asked who killed Jesus. Gibson answered, "Everyone killed Christ."

True statement if the director focused on the Jewish religious community and Roman Diocese of Judea-Idumea equally. Anti-semetic art pictures Jews in symbolism such as horns on Moses, or subtle positioning of snakes around Jews. From the trailers shown, I gather there are scenes in Gibson's movie that use similar symbolic allegory. If the trailers are a true indication of artistic treatment of the various characters, then the case of directorial bias is established. Remember that Gibson says everyone is guilty; if he is truly unbiased then everyone's guilt would be shown equally in symbolism.

Gibson was told some groups take exception to The Passion as not historically accurate. Gibson responded, "They don't have a problem with me; they have a problem with the Gospels."

True statement, if Gibson used the Gospels EXCLUSIVELY. However, Gibson did not use the Gospels exclusively but lifted the storyline off a book from a 19th Century Roman Catholic nun. Moreover, scenes in the movie that have no biblical or historic basis renders his original argument void of proof.

IMO, the detractors of the film seem to be orthodox Jews and non-sectarian Christians whereas the champions of the film seem to be Catholic and ecumenical traditionalists. I find it interesting that the arguments for-against fall along those lines by "unbiased" people in the media.

Think I'll stick to the Bible and let my imagination be the movie. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a movie that depicts Christ as a typical Jew with short hair than a pretty-boy hippie.

[Protagoras]

Crossen is everywhere there is an audience for anti Christian rhetoric. He should be excommunicated. But that's just the opinion of an outsider, I'm not Roman Catholic.