[churchillbuff]

More anti-christian garbage from somebody who's revealing his true colors. He's all for christians when they're dying on the battlefields of Iraq -- in a war he supported loudly - - - but they have their faith depicted on film (unless Jewish authorities are allowed to approve and censor the depiction) without being denounced with slimy smears. What a lowlife creep.

[Rocky]

Gee, Satan walked among Jewish people in the film? Who else would be there except Jews (in Jerusalem, that is)?

"He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up." You have to do this when you make a movie out of a book - any book. The type of portrayal has to be tailored to the medium.

The question is, did he faithfully represent the gospel accounts? I haven't seen the movie yet, but the vast majority of the accounts that I have read say, "Yes."

"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."

It was a family affair. There were Jews on both sides of the issue. Jesus and his disciples were all Jews. The early church was Jewish. There have been Jewish Christians all through church history. The cross is not a separation between Jews and Gentiles. It is a separation between those who believe in Christ and those who do not.

I think Christians in the U.S. will oppose very strongly any tendency toward anti-Semitism, wherever it arises. The Apostle Paul describes Gentile believers as grafted in, while Jewish believers are part of the original tree. Through Christ, we were made one family. There is no more Jew or Gentile in Christ.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Japanese did not kill Jesus. The Cherokee did not kill Jesus. The Slavs did not kill Jesus.

The Jews enabled the Romans to kill Jesus! But the guilty Jews and Romans are all dead.

Hate baiting now is as stupid as collective guilt over 100 generations.

This shrink should know better, but Angst pays for Dr. K.

[John Lenin]

Kraut should stick to what he does best, exposing militant Islam for what it is. Anybody who thinks Gibson got as far as he did in Hollywood by being an anti-semite is crazy.

[Sabertooth]

With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

The Romans come off far worse than the Jews, and there are far more noble Jews than there are Romans in the film

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.

Not in America.

Which is what makes Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" such a singular act of interreligious aggression. He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews.

Krauthammer's incomprehending screed, easily his worst ever, is starting to look like an act of interreligious aggression.

Of course their were villainous, stiff-necked, rebellious Jews in the Gospels and the New Testament. Why would it be any different than the Old Testament?

Is the Old Testament also an anti-Semitic document?

And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. ....

The opening scriptural reference is to Isaiah 53, which along with Chapter 52 prophesies the scourging and mutilation of Christ far more than do the Gospels.

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews

And with the Romans.

Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews.

Satan was attempting to see to it that the King of the Jews was murdered.

Perhaps this should not be surprising, coming from a filmmaker whose public pronouncements on the Holocaust are as chillingly ambiguous and carefully calibrated as that of any sophisticated Holocaust denier

In the close-ups of the nails being driven into Jesus' hands, it is Mel Gibson's own hands that do the deed.

Not a Jew's hands. Not a Roman's hands. Mel Gibson's own hands.

The guilt is on all of us. This was Gibson's way of showing what Paul taught: that we are all accountable for the Crucifixion.

We all put Christ on the Cross.

[Travis McGee]

Krauthammer is also a gun-grabber who thinks only the military and police need firearms in a civilized society.

Quite an ignorant opinion, from one who lost unarmed family to the well-armed German military and police in the Nazi Holocaust.

[mercy]

Oh gee .... now you all have to hate Krauthammer too. That's tough. Can't let a little thing like normal human respect amoungst the races get in the way of your crusade though. Buh bye Chuck. Your fair weather friends will not miss you.

[tinamina]

And I thought Charles was one of the good guys.

[Lancey Howard]

The biggest box office smash of all time.
Sorry, Charlie.

[Jape]

hey, what's the "freeper" user name and password. The Compost wants me to register.

[claudiustg]

---More anti-christian garbage from somebody who's revealing his true colors. ---

Many Jews are not just anti-Christian they're anti-religious, as are many non-Jews. As far as true colors go, I never heard Krauthammer express any special affection for the Cross or much of anything else of a religious nature.

I believe, as it is written, that The Holy Spirit goes out through the preaching of the Gospel. I have to acknowledge, however, that many people react very negatively to preaching. This movie may be a similar case. You can't force people to receive the Word after all.

[BCrago66]

You mean Jews have not died on the battlefield in Iraq? Perhaps you're telling us too much about yourself.

[beckett]

Krauthammer didn't see the same movie I saw. Maybe that's because, as Dennis Prager wrote last October, Jews and Christians are Watching Different Films. But still, Krauthammer has really gone out of his way to see malevolent artistic choices in Gibson's work where I think none exist.

[per loin]

If today's Sanhedren of Jewish columnists had Pilate ruling over them, Mel would be on a cross by now.

[leprechaun9]

Sorry Charlie - this article puts a big ZERO on your score card.

[Agnes Heep]

For centuries Jews were persecuted for denying Christianity. Now they're being persecuted for denying Mel Gibson. Try and say that isn't progress!

[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.

[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

[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.

[bimbo]

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

Good point.