Is the controversy surrounding Gibson's movie warranted?

[Osiris]

First off, I personally feel this is the correct board to post this but I guess this could appear in the Entertainment Board as well and if a mod feels that is better than go for it.

That being said...

Basically Mel Gibson decided to make a very detailed movie about Jesus, I guess he missed NBC's version ;) . It has come under fire for supposedly impyling that the Jews killed Christ. What I wonder is if that is even as controversial as it appears. It always annoys me how people flaunt the 1st Amendment but whenever something they don't like comes along they try to censor it. I'll post more thoughts later but for now I'd like to hear your opinions.

[EinBebop]

It has come under fire for supposedly impyling that the Jews killed Christ. It has also been praised for doing just the opposite. Guess we'll just have to watch it and see. ;)

[WingZombie38]

I wouldn't mind watching his take. It's nice to get things from other view points.

I am lacking in Bible skills. That said....
In more ways then one, aren't [those 2,000 year old] Jews responsible for the death of Jesus? Didn't Pontius Pilate give them a choice? They basically set a criminal free and wanted Jesus crucified.

[TimTwoFace]

That's what the controversy is all about? The jews at the time condemning Christ? It's a well documented fact in the Bible that this is exactly what did happen, so to make a movie rooted in this truth is A-OK by me. I don't see why anyone would get upset with this, though. It's not like the Germans of today get infuriated whenever another movie is made about WW2 - it's a historical movie, so accuracy is key to making it a successful movie. Simple as that.

-Tim

[EinBebop]

There's some debate over *which* Jews were the ones that had him crucified. Obviously, not all of the Jews were there. Some make a reasonable argument that the Jews in question would most likely have been Jewish leaders and/or Pharisees. Not a conclusive argument in my opinion, but there's enough doubt that I would like them to be given the benefit.

Unfortunately, some people are accustomed to idea that Jesus was killed by the entire Jewish race and are unwilling to consider the alternative. Understandable, though, considering that so many people have tried to warp the Bible so many ways. When it comes to Biblical things, more likely than not, what you've always been told is true, and it's good to be wary when people try to spring a new (and usually convenient) angle on you.

[supermonkey]

It is surpising to me so many people even care. It's just one guy's interpretation. Let him think whatever he wants to think and make whatever movie he wants to. If they get their panties in a bunch, they should make their own movie.

[Anyone00]

And some people will get pissed if Jesus is presented as having a monotheistic world view.

There is no way you can portray Jesus and the events of his life without it angering someone.

Heck there's a good chance even portraying Him at all breaks the second of The Ten Commandments.

And please, no Hispanic's name or Charlton Heston jokes.

[Boy Wonder]

Sorry to be a bother, but this sounds like a board that should be on the Entertainment Board.

[Osiris]

I think the root of the problem is that many people have one of two wrong perspectives. One is that the Jews didn't kill Christ and that is was only the Romans- that (as Tim stated) is false, they did. The other is that they killed him and thus deserve to face eternal damnation, etc. The way I see it is that the Jewish leaders of the time had, by that point, already gone through roughly 2-3 thousand years of persecution. At the time the Roman Empire was okay with the Jews not recognizing the Emperor as one of the pantheon of gods. As a result they got to be part of the Roman Empire without any flak. When Jesus came along he started turning others from the idea of worshipping the Roman Emperor of the time (I think it was Nero, probably mistaken though) and instead going for the real deal, the god of the Jews. The Romans were slightly irate at this and at the urging of the Jewish leaders (who saw Jesus as someone who was taking their people away from them) killed him. I think that as long as Gibson depicts these facts then there shouldn't be any problem, but as someone else said- people will probably have a problem with it no matter what.

[wonderfly]

Upon recieving my Newsweek this week, (a magazine who's editorial board is one of the most liberal I read) I found in the "Conventional Wisdom" section this little nugget of 'wisdom' given by the Editors:


"M. Gibson: Mad Mel's new film on Christ's final days will fuel anti-Semitism. Just what the world needs right now."

Is this not the biggest load of stink? They haven't even seen the film yet. No wonder that my man Bill O'rielly had the following to say on Monday, (in his talking points memo) about the controversy:


The New York Times vs. Mel Gibson, Part II
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
By Bill O'Reilly


"Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.

The New York Times versus Mel Gibson part two. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

It's safe to say that The Times is obsessed with trying to discredit Mel Gibson's upcoming movie about the death of Jesus. Even though the film will not be released until next year, it made the front page over the weekend and also was the subject of a vicious column [on Sunday, August 3] yesterday, where The Times writer accused Gibson of "Jew baiting."

Of course, the writer has not seen the movie and neither have I. So I'm not going to comment on the film. Also, since I am doing some business with Gibson, I can't really be objective in the matter, but I do understand what's in play, the bigger picture, and it's very important to you.

A few months ago, The New York Times ran a piece in its Sunday magazine, quoting Gibson's elderly father, who has some very strange ideas, no question about that. The story also pointed out that Gibson himself is a conservative Catholic who rejects the modernizing of the church.

So The Times connects some dots and presto, the anti-Semitism charge. But the real agenda is that the secular "Times" and its allies simply do not want Gibson's film to have any credibility at all. They've been trying to mount anger against it.

While the historical tension between Jews and Christians is a very serious subject, there is no way anyone can produce a film about Jesus without mentioning that some in the Jewish hierarchy at the time saw him as a threat.

There are two historical accounts of the execution of Jesus, one by the Jewish historian Josephus and the other by the Roman historian Tacitus. Both confirm that Jesus was ordered crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate.

Australian historian Barbara Thiering, an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls, writes, "Pilate made sure of the will of the Jews, ascertaining several times over that they really wanted these three (Jesus and two others) executed. Then, at 9 a.m., he ordered that the crucifixions be carried out."

American historian John Meyer, who intensely researched Jesus for a book, writes, "Arrested in Gethsemane on the night of April 6-7, he [Jesus] was first examined by some Jewish officials and then handed over to Pilate."

There's no question among most historians that Jesus had run afoul of some very powerful Jewish interests because of his preachings, but so what? That's history. Jesus himself and his apostles were all Jewish. Many of the people who helped him were Jewish. There are Jewish heroes and villains in the saga.

Criticizing Mel Gibson for producing a film on the execution of Jesus without first seeing the movie is intellectually dishonest and an example of witch-hunting that we've been talking about here on The Factor. Gibson has been smeared and convicted without any sense of fairness whatsoever by The New York Times and others who fear his film.

I wonder when the first movie is made about 9/11 if The Times will condemn it because it may put some Muslims in a bad light. Certainly "The Times" has had a field day with the Catholic church scandal caused by a very few criminals embedded in the organization.

The big picture here is that secular interests like The Times simply do not want a spotlight on Jesus, who advocated a strict moral code. The secularists are making the big gains these days: abortion for minors without parental consent in Florida, gay marriage initiatives, and a well-funded drug legalization lobby, just to name a few.

The more the secularists can hammer anything to do with religion or spirituality, the better it is for their non-judgmental agenda. This whole campaign against Mel Gibson is disgraceful. This is not the way a responsible press and society is supposed to behave. Questions about the project are fine. Demonizing attacks are not.

And that's The Memo."

[Joe Wagner]

Personally I think that the debate revolving around this movie is without merit - featuring a movie upon the death of Christ and then actually showing that their was a group of people responsible for clamoring for his death is not irresponsible or anti-semitic, it is historically accurate. No one would deny that King Herod wished to find Jesus as an infant and would later order the mass execution of all young boys under the age of two (Matthew 2:16) - yet this is not presented as anti-semitic, nor should it be.

David Horowitz (http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/printable.asp?ID=190) did an excellent opinion piece about this issue, it has been posted below:

Mel Gibson's film, The Passion, which is about the last twelve hours of Christ's life is the object of campaign villification and book burning by a committee of Christians and Jews who want to shut it down before it is shown, or edit it to their own politically (or religiously) correct standards. Paula Fredriksen is a spokesman for this committee. The New Republic has shamed itself by printing her ill-informed and bigoted attack on the film.

Unlike Fredriksen and others who want to destroy film before they have seen it, I have. It is not an attempt to portray the historical Jesus -- which is the subject of Fredriksen's entire screed -- nor could it be. By Fredriksen's own account there is no evidentiary basis for such a portrait and if anyone tried to create one it would be eviscerated by the same Savanarolas, precisely because no one can know what the truth is.

Gibson's film is an artistic vision and must be judged that way. Like others who have seen the film, I am sworn to keep details confidential so that it gets its chance when the distributors present it to the viewing public next Easter. However, I will say this: It is an awesome artifact, an overpowering work. I can't remember being so affected by a film before. It is extremely painful to watch and yet the violence is never gratuitous. You never feel like you want to take your eyes off the screen. It is a wracking emotional journey which never strays from its inspirational purpose. It is as close to a religious experience as art can get.

It is not anti-Semitic, as the film-burners have charged. Two illustrative details: Jesus is referred to in the film as "rabbi," and there is never any distancing of Jesus or his disciples from their Jewishness. (One point missed by ignorant bigots like Fredericksen whose only familiarity with The Passion is with a stolen script) is that while the film is in Aramaic -- a brilliant effect that enhances the symbolic resonance of the story -- it has subtitles. Second detail: A Jew carries Jesus' cross along the terrible route to Golgotha and shares his miseries. But yes the film is also faithful to the Gospels and therefore the Pharisees are Jesus' enemies and they and their flock do call for Jesus' death (and why wouldn't they since Jesus was a threat to their authority and their beliefs?).

But all this is to miss the point. This is a Christian parable. The cruelty, intolerance and lack of compassion of human beings is limitless -- and we who have lived through the Twentieth Century know this all too well. The moral of this Christian story -- of Mel Gibson's film -- is that we all killed Jesus -- Jew and Gentile alike -- and tortured him, and we do so every day. But if you believe the vision that Gibson has rendered so searingly and so well, Jesus forgives us for that very act. Whosoever will give up cruelty and love his brother will enter paradise. That is the message that Gibson has framed in his extraordinary work. The effort to shut down his film before it opens is just another station of the cross.

-Joe!

[EinBebop]

But yes the film is also faithful to the Gospels and therefore the Pharisees are Jesus' enemies and they and their flock do call for Jesus' death (and why wouldn't they since Jesus was a threat to their authority and their beliefs?).So it sounds like Horowitz is saying that they do portray the Pharisees as being the ones who demanded Jesus' death, and not the Jewish people as a whole. And people are still calling it anti-semitic? If this is true, Mel just can't win with these people.

No one would deny that King Herod wished to find Jesus as an infant and would later order the mass execution of all young boys under the age of two (Matthew 2:16) - yet this is not presented as anti-semitic, nor should it be. That's just it- noone is denying it. It's an undisputed accusation made against one man. The actions of this one man are assumed not to represent the sentiments of the entire Jewish race, especially since they are the victims and he was a Roman puppet-king. But the actions of the crowd in question have been historically used to condemn not only the Jews of the time, but the Jews of today as well.

[Joe Wagner]

So it sounds like Horowitz is saying that they do portray the Pharisees as being the ones who demanded Jesus' death, and not the Jewish people as a whole. And people are still calling it anti-semitic? If this is true, Mel just can't win with these people.

The same people causing this stir have yet to see the movie - almost like the same masses that called Harry Potter demonic without ever having read a page of any Harry Potter novel (Note: many in the Catholic Church have readily admitted that the novels represent the conflict of good vs evil and are anything but Satanic....but I digress). Within our society there seems to be a trend that judges before the final product is seen and then seeks to demonize the product by making untrue accusations. Considering the people that are behind this current "debate" there is very little Mel can do as they have already targeted his character before the current article was even printed 9by interviewing his elderly father and portraying Mel and his father in an incredibly bad light).

That's just it- noone is denying it. It's an undisputed accusation made against one man. The actions of this one man are assumed not to represent the sentiments of the entire Jewish race, especially since they are the victims and he was a Roman puppet-king. But the actions of the crowd in question have been historically used to condemn not only the Jews of the time, but the Jews of today as well.

Very true - and I would argue that these acts are not representative of Judaism but of the policies of highly placed Jewish officials. The death of Jesus was even urged by the same people that paid Judas to betray Jesus (by urging the crowd to free Barabas and condemn Jesus). This does not mean that the act of sentencing Jesus was representative of the entire Jewish population. King Herod was also a leading official at the time (King of Judea) who feared for his own power, tried to use the wise men to track Jesus down as an infant and then eventually used his power to kill the male infants of Bethlehem. Much like the leaders that called for Jesus's death Herod attempted the same thing. To me these are very similair as both times the use of power was engaged in an attempt to kill the Son of God. If a movie were to be made about King Herod and Joseph, Mary and Jesus's trip to Egypt the same arguement could be made that the movie portrays the Jewish population in a bad light because the King was a Jew and performed murder upon his own citizens by using a Jewish army in an attempt to kill Jesus. Basically, both cases show how people were manipulated in an effort to attain a goal - the death of the King of the Jews. Whereas one used the masses in their efforts the other used wisemen and troops to perform his actions. Either way it was political clout that allowed for both events to occur.

-Joe!

[Chris Wood]

It's not like the Germans of today get infuriated whenever another movie is made about WW2 - it's a historical movie, so accuracy is key to making it a successful movie. Simple as that.

-Tim

I wouldn't be so sure. How many Germans have you talked to about this? Just because a movie is "historical" doesn't mean it is a universally accepted version of history. History changes greatly depending on who wrote it.

[Tienshin]

I wouldn't be so sure. How many Germans have you talked to about this? Just because a movie is "historical" doesn't mean it is a universally accepted version of history. History changes greatly depending on who wrote it.

Desslar's idea is a good valid example of people getting sqeamish about history. The Japanese are very sensitive regarding WW2 films as well as depictions of the events in China when they invaded. Still though, as long as a story tells the truth and does not attempt to interpret facts sensitive issues can and should be dealt with.

[Dark Vicious]

Are you all forgetting? Romans killed Jesus not Jews, Jesus was a Jew.

[BrendaBat]

I think its unfair to judge a film without seeing a single second of it. I just hope it doesn't portray the whole Jewish race as "the evil murderers of Christ". I get enough of that as it is and I don't need some silly movie to add to it :rolleyes:
If its half as bad as people have made it out to be then it'll ruin Gibson's reputation and justice will be served. :p

I never understood the reasoning that, because a few Jews ALLEGEDLY killed some guy who may not have even existed, they diserve to be hated forever. I've never killed anyone and yet I've been accused of murdering the Savior countless times. I HATE stupid bigots! :mad:
[/END RANT]

Very true - and I would argue that these acts are not representative of Judaism but of the policies of highly placed Jewish officials.
Umm, my grandfather is a highly placed Jewish official and he has never ordered an execution
....at least I think he hasn't ;)

[Lucky Bob]

Desslar's idea is a good valid example of people getting sqeamish about history. The Japanese are very sensitive regarding WW2 films as well as depictions of the events in China when they invaded. Still though, as long as a story tells the truth and does not attempt to interpret facts sensitive issues can and should be dealt with.

http://hem.passagen.se/aasman/gumby/cleese/images/s126a.jpg

So, that's two Adolfs und one Herman Goering.

(Whatever you do, Polly, DON'T MENTION THE WAR! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.)

Sorry, in touch with my British side today. Carry on!

[Chris Wood]

http://hem.passagen.se/aasman/gumby/cleese/images/s126a.jpg

So, that's two Adolfs und one Herman Goering.

(Whatever you do, Polly, DON'T MENTION THE WAR! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.)

Sorry, in touch with my British side today. Carry on!

You started it!

We did not start it!

Yes you did, you invaded Poland.

[Lucky Bob]

You started it!

We did not start it!

Yes you did, you invaded Poland.

Funniest. Episode. Ever.

[Zoddman]

Are you all forgetting? Romans killed Jesus not Jews, Jesus was a Jew.Uh, no Vicious. The Roman Authorities in Jerusalem committed the act, but they were given the greenlight to crucify Jesus by the Jewish civilians. Pontius Pilat, the Roman authority in charge of Jerusalem, gave the people of Jerusalem numerous times to vindicate Jesus, such as the choice of either freeing Jesus or a criminal who was a condemned murderer. They let the murderer free instead of Jesus, who never harmed a human being. The ONLY reason the Romans killed Jesus was because the high Jewish authority in Jerusalem DEMANDED it. Rome had no reason to kill Jesus, he was no threat to them, but he was a threat to the Jewish synogauge's way of thinking.

[Zoddman]

I think its unfair to judge a film without seeing a single second of it. I just hope it doesn't portray the whole Jewish race as "the evil murderers of Christ". I get enough of that as it is and I don't need some silly movie to add to it :rolleyes:
If its half as bad as people have made it out to be then it'll ruin Gibson's reputation and justice will be served. :p It won't, because jesus's disciples, the later apostles, and many, many people who remained loyal to Jesus were Jewish. The only people who supported Jesus before Rome adopted Christianity were reformed Jews.

I never understood the reasoning that, because a few Jews ALLEGEDLY killed some guy who may not have even existed, they diserve to be hated forever. I've never killed anyone and yet I've been accused of murdering the Savior countless times. I HATE stupid bigots! :mad:
[/END RANT] You're right, people who practice and are a part of Judaism DO NOT deserve to be hated for Jesus's crucifixion, but the people who extoll the hate are the same people who hate anybody who isn't white. So just remember who the people are who say things like that. They are quickly becoming a silenced, and very small minority in America.

Umm, my grandfather is a highly placed Jewish official and he has never ordered an execution
....at least I think he hasn't ;)Cute. But on a serious note, Film Critic and Radio Personality Michael Medved is the president of the Elder's group of his Synagogue, and he has seen the Passion, and says it is one of the most powerful films he has ever seen, and that he doesen't find it Anti-semitic in the least.

I'm done talking. I'm gonna eat a sandwich.

[wonderfly]

Uh, no Vicious. The Roman Authorities in Jerusalem committed the act, but they were given the greenlight to crucify Jesus by the Jewish civilians. Pontius Pilat, the Roman authority in charge of Jerusalem, gave the people of Jerusalem numerous times to vindicate Jesus, such as the choice of either freeing Jesus or a criminal who was a condemned murderer. They let the murderer free instead of Jesus, who never harmed a human being. The ONLY reason the Romans killed Jesus was because the high Jewish authority in Jerusalem DEMANDED it. Rome had no reason to kill Jesus, he was no threat to them, but he was a threat to the Jewish synogauge's way of thinking.

This'll be the stuff of debate till the end of time. Let me just say that technically speaking, it's probably equally the fault of the Romans and the Jews, (at least those Romans and Jews who were in Jerusalim; again, you can't fault entire races/peoples). But none of the "technical" blame matters: Jesus wanted to die. He wanted to die for all humanity, (or so Christian teaching goes). Thus, it is ALL OF HUMANITIES fault that he died. So stop killing each other and starting holy wars. :cool:

[Dark Vicious]

Uh, no Vicious. The Roman Authorities in Jerusalem committed the act, but they were given the greenlight to crucify Jesus by the Jewish civilians. Pontius Pilat, the Roman authority in charge of Jerusalem, gave the people of Jerusalem numerous times to vindicate Jesus, such as the choice of either freeing Jesus or a criminal who was a condemned murderer. They let the murderer free instead of Jesus, who never harmed a human being. The ONLY reason the Romans killed Jesus was because the high Jewish authority in Jerusalem DEMANDED it. Rome had no reason to kill Jesus, he was no threat to them, but he was a threat to the Jewish synogauge's way of thinking.
Sorry, I need to catch up on my bible reading still stuck on Genesis

[Psycho Fox]

Uh, no Vicious. The Roman Authorities in Jerusalem committed the act, but they were given the greenlight to crucify Jesus by the Jewish civilians. Pontius Pilat, the Roman authority in charge of Jerusalem, gave the people of Jerusalem numerous times to vindicate Jesus, such as the choice of either freeing Jesus or a criminal who was a condemned murderer. They let the murderer free instead of Jesus, who never harmed a human being. The ONLY reason the Romans killed Jesus was because the high Jewish authority in Jerusalem DEMANDED it. Rome had no reason to kill Jesus, he was no threat to them, but he was a threat to the Jewish synogauge's way of thinking.
Actully some think that Rome rewrote history since Rome was seen as infallible and Rome can't be infallible if they kill the son of god thus some think after the fact there was a cover up and the jews got the blame.

[EinBebop]

Sorry, I need to catch up on my bible reading still stuck on GenesisOnce God finishes creating the Earth, it starts to pick up. :p

[Sublime420]

So the jews killed Jesus...

It's like he didn't come back as a zombie and eat their brains. All this meaningless anger. In the end, it isn't the children we try to influence...
But the men and women (hah, mostly men) that harm another to maintain their illusions.

Ain't religion grand!

Nah, blame probably shouldn't be placed. If it isn't one illusion it will certainly be another, won't it? Or maybe it is the persistance of an illusion that surpresses any form of rational.
In that case, there is a place to blame.

Do not eat my brain Jesus, DO NOT EAT MY BRAIN!!!

[RockItShipper]

Uh, no Vicious. The Roman Authorities in Jerusalem committed the act, but they were given the greenlight to crucify Jesus by the Jewish civilians. Pontius Pilat, the Roman authority in charge of Jerusalem, gave the people of Jerusalem numerous times to vindicate Jesus, such as the choice of either freeing Jesus or a criminal who was a condemned murderer. They let the murderer free instead of Jesus, who never harmed a human being. The ONLY reason the Romans killed Jesus was because the high Jewish authority in Jerusalem DEMANDED it. Rome had no reason to kill Jesus, he was no threat to them, but he was a threat to the Jewish synogauge's way of thinking.

That's the story given in the Bible- that Pontius Pilate didn't really want to kill Jesus. But that hardly matches other historical accounts that describe Pilate's brutality. Granted, Jesus wasn't a popular figure with the High Priests any more than Martin Luther was with the Papacy centuries later. But up until Saul/Paul's conversion, Jesus' teachings were those of reform Judaism. Christianity as its own religion began not with Jesus or his apostles, but Paul who approached Gentiles/non-Jews and made certain changes to make the religion more palatable. Cleaning up Pilate's culpability may have been one such change- not neccessarily in Paul's time but probably before Constantine became the first Christian Emperor of Rome. A number of uncanonized gospels even resemble Greco-Roman folk tales and such. Such as this variation on Aesop: a saint baptized a lion, was sent to the Collisseum to be devoured by wild beasts, and was fortunate enough to be facing the baptized lion.

[Zoddman]

That's the story given in the Bible- that Pontius Pilate didn't really want to kill Jesus. But that hardly matches other historical accounts that describe Pilate's brutality. Granted, Jesus wasn't a popular figure with the High Priests any more than Martin Luther was with the Papacy centuries later. But up until Saul/Paul's conversion, Jesus' teachings were those of reform Judaism. Christianity as its own religion began not with Jesus or his apostles, but Paul who approached Gentiles/non-Jews and made certain changes to make the religion more palatable. Cleaning up Pilate's culpability may have been one such change- not neccessarily in Paul's time but probably before Constantine became the first Christian Emperor of Rome. A number of uncanonized gospels even resemble Greco-Roman folk tales and such. Such as this variation on Aesop: a saint baptized a lion, was sent to the Collisseum to be devoured by wild beasts, and was fortunate enough to be facing the baptized lion.Interesting theory, but Pilate could have been planning to use Jesus as a political tool against the Holy Synagogue of Jerusalem, thus separating the following of the Jewish people. If this is true, then he would give all alternatives necessary to keep Jesus under his custody as a token rabbi of the Roman Empire.

[Zoddman]

Actully some think that Rome rewrote history since Rome was seen as infallible and Rome can't be infallible if they kill the son of god thus some think after the fact there was a cover up and the jews got the blame.Just think of it like a gladiatorial fight: Jesus had a spear to his throat, and the Roman gladiator asks the crowd "Shall he live or die?" The crowd of people in Jerusalem gave the thumbs down, and so Jesus was crucified. Both are eually responsible.

P.S. Just remember this is NOT all Jewish people in general, not even in Jerusalem, but an overwhelming majority who wanted Christ dead.

Also, if the option was given for Martin Luther's death at the time he called for the Reformation, would the Roman Catholics that surrounded him want a similar death for Luther?

[Psycho Fox]

Interesting theory, but Pilate could have been planning to use Jesus as a political tool against the Holy Synagogue of Jerusalem, thus separating the following of the Jewish people. If this is true, then he would give all alternatives necessary to keep Jesus under his custody as a token rabbi of the Roman Empire.But Jesus was a radical that was more of a threat to the Roman Empire then anyone else. If Jesus wasn't killed there then the Roman Army would have killed him later as an enemy of the state for leading a popular uprising aginst the republic.


Just think of it like a gladiatorial fight: Jesus had a spear to his throat, and the Roman gladiator asks the crowd "Shall he live or die?" The crowd of people in Jerusalem gave the thumbs down, and so Jesus was crucified. Both are eually responsible.


But was it ever like that? Was the crowd on Pilate's pay roll? Or did the Army threaten the crowd like the Nazi's did way way later. Was there even such an even and it just pure fiction done up by Rome? Maybe the people actully protested that Jesus remain alive or maybe it was just a hand full that were there that did want Jesus dead and the Army kept the majority of the populas away.

[Lucky Bob]

But Jesus was a radical that was more of a threat to the Roman Empire then anyone else. If Jesus wasn't killed there then the Roman Army would have killed him later as an enemy of the state for leading a popular uprising aginst the republic.




But was it ever like that? Was the crowd on Pilate's pay roll? Or did the Army threaten the crowd like the Nazi's did way way later. Was there even such an even and it just pure fiction done up by Rome? Maybe the people actully protested that Jesus remain alive or maybe it was just a hand full that were there that did want Jesus dead and the Army kept the majority of the populas away.
Fox, I know that conspiracy is your thing, but without evidence, why just start pulling these hypotheticals out of thin air? We need to go with what evidence we do have. According to the Scriptures, which I know you don't believe, but it's still documented as opposed to your "what-ifs", the crowd was set up by the then-corrupt Jewish leadership. Given the condition in Israel at the time, Rome probably didn't care less about what went on in Israel. The Jewish leaders were pandering to the Romans, and in return, they were given some degree of autonomy. I mean, even though Rome ran the place, they still allowed Herod to rule! And besides, before Jesus went to Pilate, He was tried by the Jewish Sanhedrin, the highest religious court in the land. Thus, from the evidence provided, it would appear that the Jewish leadership had a major role to play in the crucifixion of Jesus.

But at any rate, Jesus said often during His ministry that He was going to be crucified. He knew what was going to happen, and really, that's why He came in the first place. Thus, I don't blame the Jews, or the Romans, or whatever. I blame humanity in general for sinning in the first place, and making it neccesary that Jesus had to die so that humanity would be ultimately saved.

As to Gibson's movie, the controversy is silly. If we have to alter documented historical happenings for the sake of not offending people, that's a rather dangerous precedent.

[Psycho Fox]

Fox, I know that conspiracy is your thing, but without evidence, why just start pulling these hypotheticals out of thin air? We need to go with what evidence we do have. According to the Scriptures, which I know you don't believe, but it's still documented as opposed to your "what-ifs", the crowd was set up by the then-corrupt Jewish leadership. Given the condition in Israel at the time, Rome probably didn't care less about what went on in Israel. The Jewish leaders were pandering to the Romans, and in return, they were given some degree of autonomy. I mean, even though Rome ran the place, they still allowed Herod to rule! And besides, before Jesus went to Pilate, He was tried by the Jewish Sanhedrin, the highest religious court in the land. Thus, from the evidence provided, it would appear that the Jewish leadership had a major role to play in the crucifixion of Jesus.

If Jesus was killed by the Nazi's and history claims Hitler didn't kill Jesus he asked the crowed, would you belive it?

Rome was an evil empire that saw every revolunary as its enemy. Don't forget Jesus wasn't the first revolunary Rome did away with, Some even were able to overthrow the republic so of course the Roman republic would be ploting aginst Jesus as to them he could very well march an army into Rome.

[Lucky Bob]

If Jesus was killed by the Nazi's and history claims Hitler didn't kill Jesus he asked the crowed, would you belive it?

Rome was an evil empire that saw every revolunary as its enemy. Don't forget Jesus wasn't the first revolunary Rome did away with, Some even were able to overthrow the republic so of course the Roman republic would be ploting aginst Jesus as to them he could very well march an army into Rome.

Did Rome have their reasons? Maybe. Like I said, the Jewish leadership was in cahoots with Rome. They kept Rome happy, they kept their jobs. But from the documented evidence that we have, Pilate didn't seem to care about what happened. Conspiracy theories aside, he did say that he found no fault with Jesus, and that he washed his hands of the whole affair.

But again, that's all historical stuff. And if one is going to make a good, historically accurate movie, he needs to stick with what evidence he does have, not just conspiracy theories from those who weren't there. And he should especially not make it look like one of the commonly held guilty parties had absolutely nothing to do with it, for the sake of political correctness. It's not wrong to point out Rome's role, but it is wrong to say that the Jewish leaders had nothing to do with it. That's a historical falsehood.

[Delthayre]

The only thing I don't like about The Passion is that the Roman's will apparently be speaking Latin. That's not really accurate. The dominant language of the eastern Roman empire was Greek.

-segue-

This film won't be at all anti-semitic. If it portrays people doing something wrong it does not matter that those people are Jewish, it matters that what is being done is wrong. And as it has been said, an entire group of peole cannot be held in contemp for the actions of a segment of said group under dubious conditions.

[EinBebop]

Weren't the nails made in Taiwan? The Taiwanese killed Jesus!! :eek:

[Psycho Fox]

Did Rome have their reasons? Maybe. Like I said, the Jewish leadership was in cahoots with Rome. They kept Rome happy, they kept their jobs. But from the documented evidence that we have, Pilate didn't seem to care about what happened. Conspiracy theories aside, he did say that he found no fault with Jesus, and that he washed his hands of the whole affair.But Rome did, remeber ROME ordered martial law and a lockdown going over Pilate's head and placed alot of reserve troops there for a "non event". There is heavey evidince this was a hot spot for Rome and Rome was on the alert for all revolunaries.


But again, that's all historical stuff. And if one is going to make a good, historically accurate movie, he needs to stick with what evidence he does have, not just conspiracy theories from those who weren't there. And he should especially not make it look like one of the commonly held guilty parties had absolutely nothing to do with it, for the sake of political correctness. It's not wrong to point out Rome's role, but it is wrong to say that the Jewish leaders had nothing to do with it. That's a historical falsehood.
Agree but there is alot of evidince that Rome (the empire not just Pailate) had a heavy hand