Krauthammer: "Gibson's Blood Libel"

Washington Post ^ | Mar. 5, 04 | Charles Krauthammer

[churchillbuff]

Gibson's Blood Libel

By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A23

Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story. ...[snip]

Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.

[Concerned]

DESTROYTHEDEMOCRATS WROTE: "This movie is by it's very nature more graphic than the bible which did NOT come with pictures."

No, the film is NOT more graphic than the Bible! It is nowhere close! Please reread the Scripture I quoted in post 299 which I partially quote below. The Bible's description is FAR more graphic than the film:

"...His appearance so disfigured beyond that of any man and His form marred beyond human likeness."

Could you not tell the actor playing Jesus was still a man? I could. He wasn't "so disfigured beyond that of any man" or "His form marred beyond human likeness" or neither of us would be able to recognize the actor as a man. Indeed, Jesus was so marred that even His Disciples did not recognize him at first after His resurrection.

[ambrose]

But that history is largely absent from the United States.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

"But the conceivable flaming and resultant removal of my statement does not negate the possibility that 6,000,000 may be an inflated number"

In the 1950s, as acquaintance asked Adolf Eichman how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust.

Eichman thought for a minute. "Six million", he answered.

Now crawl back into the hole you came from.

---

Interesting. Would you provide a checkable reference for this claim? Since the actual number is unknown, and all claims are based on estimates drawn from far-from-perfect historical records, I wonder where (if the Eichman statement is verifiable) Eichman came up with his number? I've seen estimates from 4 to over 8 million, with 6 somewhere in the middle. Since the WWII European death toll was manifestly in the tens of millions, the "correct figure" whatever it is, falls into the second decimal place of the total death toll.

What makes the raw number, whatever its correct magnitude, more significant is the percentage of the total European Jewish population of the time this represents - - - and the fact that the intent of those who planned and executed the slaughter was total elimination of the Jews. Equally significant, I think, is that the attempt failed, as have previous attempts down through the centuries. Those who trust the Christian scriptures can be confident that any future attempts will fail too. God will always preserve a remnant, and their descendants "will be back" to hold the perpetrators accountable.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"They (the Jews) weren't outraged because nearly all previous Christ movies were bland and boring ...."the mendacity of the high priests just leaps off the screen. I'm sure that's what they're upset about. Gibson's portrayal of the Gospels just has too much power."

There ya go. Mel Gibson the fifth evangelist!!! What in the world did Christians do before this benighted movie? How did we get along with only the four gospels as written? How could God have waited so long to send us his ONLY ANNOINTED FILMMAKER. Yes old Mel has really shaken up the Jews like no one else before not even the evangelists themselves. But I think you are incorrect. It was the devil walking behind the Jewish crowd that shook them up.

[Just mythoughts]

What irony. What continually gets ignored by some who claim ownership of the Torah, is Psalms 22 penned by King David, preached by Christ on the cross was written hundreds of years prior to the event.

That high priest's words were sealed in that writing and what the Roman soldiers would do with the "vesture" of Christ. Psalms 22 is but one place where the 1st and 2nd advent of Christ, was foretold. From Genesis forward all scripture points to Christ, and the "Who, What, Where, When, and the Why".

I personally believe each individual has the "freedom" to believe whatever they choose. However, not one of these that accuse falsely the motivation of Mel, ever quotes the scripture to give credibility for the accusations.

No person can be forced to love Christ, love has never been an emotion of force.

Another irony has come forth in the attempt to stop Mel in making his movie. The words demanded to be removed, from this movie, were not Christ's words, and yet on this day, Christians today, are held to account for past generations deeds.

[Caipirabob]

Jesus said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Ever since A FReeper shared this passage with us here I've been thinking about it. I read more on it through the web. It's brought some meaningful insight to possible interpetations of this phrase (from Matthew 10:34).

(Matthew 10:34) "For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

(Luke 12:51) - "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three..."

Seems to me it's self explanatory to a point. The word of God that Jesus has tried to make us understand is the sword. It will divide us into those who believe and those who don't. It's also "Solomon's Sword" that will divide us into those who don't and those who do love (1 Kings 3:23-28, BB).

I've been reading a lot since I saw "The Passion". I guess it was just the "good boot" I needed. At any rate, I think I'm beginning to perceive things a little differently. I mean, from the perspective of the readings above, I kind of see myself pulling back from the casual evil that has bombarded us every day via leftist spew and propaganda. I don't have to accept it as "part of every day life". After a while those lines that you wouldn't cross become a little more faded every day. The way I'm feeling now though, I can see them a lot more clearly.

Anyway, it's a good start. Sure makes it easy to see who these liberal creeps side with. Yeah, I can forgive them, but also, thanks to the sword, in no way whatsoever am I required to accept their liberal spew. Really, I feel a whole lot better today.

[dennisw]

But that history (bloody history of European anti Semitism) is largely absent from the United States.

But of course. However, Gibson's PASSION will be seen worldwide. I sure hope no tricks are played with the dubbing. I'll be quite curious to know what Hindus, Muslims, Christians in Europe & Latin America and think of PASSION. Whether this PASSION makes them see Jews as Christ killers.

[dennisw]

Is it your contention that a film in which a Crucified Christ defeats Satan in hell, is Resurrected, and walks from the tomb, is going to inspire Muslims to perpetrate violence against Jews?

Will be used by Muslims to make anti Jewish propaganda. A favorite Muslim game is to see if they can trick Christians into hating Israel. This plays out all the time in the UN and the media.

[ambrose]

Well, Gibson can't be responsible for how morons choose to interpret his work.

I think he was pretty clear in the film that ALL OF MANKIND was responsible for the death of Jesus.

[dennisw]

This movie is by it's very nature more graphic than the bible which did NOT come with pictures. All one is ever required to do to understand the passion of Christ is to READ the gospels and meditate on them. Nobody has to make a movie about it. Nobody has to go see a movie about it. And nobody has to like a movie about it.

What's next? A 2 hour long computer generated virtual reality program where you stand 2 feet away from Christ as he's tormented, railed against and crucified? This is the only way to get closer to the PASSION "experience" than Mel's movie

[tm22721]

When it comes down to it, Jews had better realize which side their bread is buttered on.

One billion Muslims are itching to crush them.

BUMP

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"No, the film is NOT more graphic than the Bible! It is nowhere close! Please reread the Scripture I quoted in post 299 which I partially quote below. The Bible's description is FAR more graphic than the film:"

Then please tell me why most people can tolerate reading about a person who was burned alive but don't want to see a picture of the corpse. Just because a terrible and gruesome event really occurred does not automatically justify a graphic reenactment.

I am willing to bet that if let's say a bunch of Protestants made a movie that was a 100 minute long graphic reenactment of how Catholics burned Protestants at the stake during the middle ages, to include the devil walking in the Catholic crowds as they laughed and cheered while the Protestants screamed in agony -- Catholics would loose it!! They would go ballistic. Sean Hannity would pop an artery!! Do you think that they would accept that because the event really happened we need to show the blistering skin, the devil and the flesh falling into the fire and hissing?

As a Catholic when I look at it that way I understand why some Jews feel as they do. I understand why some are so offended by the violence. Put yourself in their shoes. Just because it is a movie about Jesus is it not above criticism. The critcim is not going to hurt anything really. Why throw good men like Krauthammer over the side because of it?

[longtermmemmory]

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel,
impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging.

and what evidence is there that he did not?
This is a movie, an artistic interpritation.

Did Caiaphas have something else to do?
Check up on some emails perhaps?

How many other "interpritations" have been creative?
Jesus Christ surperstar, Last Temptation, and the list goes on.
Even E.T. rips off from the Greatest Story.

If he wants better accuracy, read the book.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"What's next? A 2 hour long computer generated virtual reality program where you stand 2 feet away from Christ as he's tormented, railed against and crucified? This is the only way to get closer to the PASSION "experience" than Mel's movie"

Exactly!

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"He wasn't "so disfigured beyond that of any man"

Darn what a gyp! You should get your money back.

[dennisw]

Was written in 1996. I hope Charles Krauthamer is no longer anti gun.

[beaversmom]

Christians find the SACRIFICE uplifting not the violence. Even though the violence is hard to watch, you have to understand it to understand the sacrifice that was made. The Devil is swirling around the CROWDS that are acting wickedly. The story occurs in a Jewish land so there are going to be Jews around. Maybe Mel should have thrown in a few Eskimos. I didn't see the Devil swirling around the Jews that weren't acting wickedly. Also, even with the main instigator, Caiaphas, you don't see the devil lurking over him pulling any strings. The crowd symbolizes mankind not a specific person. Speaking for myself, The Devil makes me think about what is swirling around myself--"What am I inviting into my life?" "How wicked are my ways?" Seeing More Clearly Now--you need a new optometrist. You are missing the whole point of Christianity.

[longtermmemmory]

From the History Channel documentaries (and a few other documentaries) it seems very clear the whipping and crucifixion is very bloody TORTURE. Crucifixion is supposed to deter and SCARE. Obey or suffer the same.

If the videos of saddam's torturers are any indication, it is a fair approximation. Those who don't want to see this MOVIE are free to not spend their money to see it. It's not as if hollywood is going to be flooding the market with so many bible stories you will be unable to avoid them.

[bimbo]

He's all for christians when they're dying on the battlefields of Iraq …

Good point.

[Just mythoughts]

"I am willing to bet that if let's say a bunch of Protestants made a movie that was a 100 minute long graphic reenactment of how Catholics burned Protestants at the stake during the middle ages, to include the devil walking in the Catholic crowds as they laughed and cheered while the Protestants screamed in agony -- Catholics would loose it!! They would go ballistic. Sean Hannity would pop an artery!! Do you think that they would accept that because the event really happened we need to show the blistering skin, the devil and the flesh falling into the fire and hissing?"

I am not a Catholic, so in your world view I would probably fit into the "Protestants" category.

Your analogy portraying Protestants using Catholic deeds misses the whole boat.

Christ never sinned, there is not a protestant or catholic that can claim that. I would consider it blasplemous for "protestants" to try and equate themselves to Christ by doing what you suggest. This is what is constantly ignore, Christ willingly gave Himself, and only He could do what no other man has done, HE NEVER SINNED!