Posted on 03/09/2004 5:04:23 AM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
From all I'm reading, the central question surrounding Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is whether or not Gibson is portraying the Jews as responsible for the death of Jesus and whether or not this is anti-Semitism. I have a different question, if you'll pardon it coming from a non-Christian who's not seen the movie and isn't terribly familiar with the Christian Bible: So what?
I understand history. I understand that blaming Jews for the death of Jesus was a cause of anti-Semitism in the past. Heck, my grandparents and great-grandparents came to America, fleeing that mindset. I understand that there are still nutcases around -- perhaps entire nutty societies, though not in the U.S. -- who hold this to be the case and say that today's Jews are responsible for what happened almost two-thousand years ago.
But I also understand that this is the United States. This is a nation founded on the belief in the individual. An American cannot legally be punished for the actions of their family (the one exception being parents sometimes being held responsible for the acts of minor children). What a parent does is not held against their children.
By that bedrock belief, to hold the Jews of today responsible for whatever was done by the Jews of Jesus's time -- and even then, by those relatively few Jews who called for Jesus's death (Jews were already rather widely dispersed through the Roman Empire at that time, even if the Diaspora had not yet occurred) -- is un-American. More than blaming children for the actions of parents, it is blaming people of today for what their potential fifty-plus-times-great-grandparents may or may not have done and said. It goes against the American belief of individual responsibility.
Again: So what? Those worried that Gibson's move is anti-Semitic could easily say, "Maybe the Jews killed Jesus. Maybe they didn't. But no one can be held responsible for what occurred two-thousand years ago." But they don't. Why not?
Take a look at the politics of most of the critics. They're on the political left. And among the views held on the political left is support of affirmative action. Many on the left support slave reparations. Many blame American actions for the acts of 9/11.
In short, most of the left believe in collective guilt. They may not call it that, but penalizing members of certain groups and rewarding others for misdeeds in the past is collective guilt. The left holds individuals guilty for the acts of their ancestors. The time span may be compressed, but the American left has the same anti-individualist mindset that murdered Jews, claiming they were responsible for the death of Jesus.
For the left to confront the possibility that Jews -- not THE Jews, but some Jews -- may have been complicit in the death of Jesus would require them to say that there is no such thing as collective guilt. For a political mindset that has its policies grounded in this same collective guilt, this is an impossible thing to do. Thus, they must attack the movie.
So what? So that.
I couldn't agree more - wasn't Jesus' death prophesized including Judas' betrayal? One can make a case that they were all puppets - a "staged" drama to get a message across.
But, if I knew I was the son of god (immortal, omnipotent, omniscent) and that I was only temporarily playing the role of a tortured, murdered mortal in a drama written, produced and directed by me, how big a sacrifice is that?
So Mel Gibson thinks Vatican II is an abomination.
Ummmm, Veronica, Celtjew Libertarian said the phrase "Jews killed Jesus" in the title of his own vanity thread.
Mel Gibson hasn't said "The Jews killed Jesus".
American Christians haven't said "The Jews killed Jesus".
The individuals who keep reapeating the phrase "The Jews killed Jesus", ad nauseum, in front of every TV camera and in every editorial column they write are the Abe Foxman's of America and those who agree with him on this issue.
I adressed this issue for others on Post 345 on this thread where I pointed out that, although the "Jews killed Christ" libel may have been an integral part of the Central Europe and Eastern Europe where your Ashkenazi ancestros fled from, the "Jews killed Christ" libel is NOT a part of the American Christian tradition.
American Christians belive they killed Christ because of their sins. Not you. Not the "The Jews". They believe they killed Christ.
I also addressed this issue specifically to you on Post 412 on that same thread..
You never replied.
The problem, as I see it, is that you want to treat 21st Century American Christians as if they were the 19th Century Russian peasants stoking up their anti-Semitic hate on a 19th Century Eastern European "The Jews KIlled Christ" Passion Play prior to getting drunk, getting their torches and pitchforks and going over to the Jewish village for the yearly pogrom.
Veronica, I am trying again to say this to you, to Abe Foxman and to those who share his view of America:
You are not in your great-grandfather's Eastern Europe any more.
You are in America.
Stop treating 21st Century Amertican Christians as if they were 19th Century Czarist Russian peasants.
Your ancestor's fled Europe for American because American Christians had built a land where they could be safe from the anti-Semitic hatred and violence that made life for them intolerable in Eastern and Central Europe.
Now, the descendant of those earlier American Christians are being treated by the descendants of those earlier Jewish immigrants as if you and your family had never left Old Europe and as if American Christians were Czarist era Russian peasants with all the beliefs, biases, susperstitions and blood libels characteristic of Czarist era Russian peasants.
In doing so, you are attacking the deep rooted religious beliefs of the Old American Christian tradition that made America a beacon of freedom for the Jewish refugees of the 19th and early 20th Centuries and you are needlessly alienating the best friends that Israel has in the in the World today.
Right now, Europe is anti-Semitic, the Middle East is anti-Semitic, the Left is anti-Semitic and much of the Third World is anti-Semitic.
After you alienate the American Christians who take their religion seriously, the one non-Jewish demographic group with a history of strong, deeply held support for Israel and the Jewish people, it's going to be a pretty hostile and lonely world out there.
I had another interesting conversation last light with our (liberal) parish nun, regarding whether Mel Gibson considered himself a "Roman Catholic." She did not consider him "Roman Catholic" because he called himself a "traditionalist Catholic" in the PrimeTime interview.
Confused, I asked why someone who was born, raised, and continues to practice in the Traditional manner (in this case, the Tridentine Rite....not contrary to Vatican II guidelines) could not be considered "Roman Catholic."
She said he stated in the interview that he (and his Holy Family Church in Malibu...a "splinter group" as she put it) rejects Vatican II (per his statements in the interview), thus puts himself 'above' the Church and cannot be considered a true Roman Catholic.
Needless to say, I've become confused at a higher level now, LOL. (I also maintain that some of his interview might have been taken out of context...they took a four hour sitting and condensed it into 1 hour). Any thoughts? It sounds to me that the term "Roman Catholic" is loose, depending on what "it" is.
You are absolutely right, and this is confirmed by Old and New Testament Scripture:
...I believe the Messiah will come...
Yes, indeed! The fact is, He has come but also will come again (known as the Second Coming). Jesus Himself says this, as do many other Scriptures.
...I believe he will be a righteous human,...
Again, correct. There was only one "righteous human", Jesus. "Righteousness" can only be imparted to others by His gift, His blood, His actions...
...not a god or aspect of God...
You nailed it again! He is not "a god" (small "g") nor an "aspect of God". Jesus is fully God and fully man.
...I don't believe he will be killed by God, nor anyone else....
Again, you are right on target. His death on the cross was a one-time event, and He is now resurrected for all time. Death could not hold Him, and was a singular event for a singular purpose - our redemption!
And when He returns, He will return as you envision Him - as a King, leading His armies and His People to reign for 1000 years (check out the Book of Revelation, especially Chapter 19,20) before His final victory over Satan.
So, you aren't at all wrong or in error of what you say. You just missed out on His First Coming, which ushered in the Age Of Grace. But, you can still fully partake in it as well as the Second Coming.
The Messiah is for all mankind, not just the Jews. And the sin of all mankind put Him to death, not just that of the Jews. It pleased God to use His special, chosen, faithful People - the Jews - for His sovereign Purpose.
We Gentiles have much to thank you for. Please don't let a one-dimensional view of all this keep you from partaking in His Kingdom in this present Age Of Grace. There are many Jews who are also Christian. Being such does not make them less a Jew.
I had another interesting conversation last light with our (liberal) parish nun, regarding whether Mel Gibson considered himself a "Roman Catholic." She did not consider him "Roman Catholic" because he called himself a "traditionalist Catholic" in the PrimeTime interview. I've heard him refer to himself as a Roman Catholic on several occasions.
Confused, I asked why someone who was born, raised, and continues to practice in the Traditional manner (in this case, the Tridentine Rite....not contrary to Vatican II guidelines) could not be considered "Roman Catholic."
She said he stated in the interview that he (and his Holy Family Church in Malibu...a "splinter group" as she put it) rejects Vatican II (per his statements in the interview), thus puts himself 'above' the Church and cannot be considered in union with Rome.
Needless to say, I've become confused at a higher level now, LOL. (I also maintain that some of his interview might have been taken out of context...they took a four hour sitting and condensed it into 1 hour). Any thoughts? It sounds to me that the term "Roman Catholic" is loose, depending on what "it" is.
Reason I ask is that Christians who follow the King James have been given the idea that Jews only follow the Old Testament from the King James
The JPS is the standard English translation for Jews and, from what I've read, it was strongly influenced by the King James Version, but it's not the same translation. I don't really know much about Rabbi Aryeh Kapan, but his translation is fairly recent (he died at age 48 in 1983) and already quite respected.
Thing is, most religious Jews don't follow any translation of the Bible. They read it in the original Hebrew. Frankly, I don't think anyone can really say they know the Bible (OT), unless they are fluent in Hebrew. Since I don't know Hebrew, I include myself among those who don't know the Bible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.