Why does there seem to be such negative Jewish reaction to this movie?

I mean, who do they say had Christ crucified if not the Jewish leaders at that time?

Were there Jews at that time who honestly thought that Jesus just did not fulfill the prophesies, or was it all just a political power thing ?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 31, 2004

Answers

Send this thread to “ New Answers” to invite further comment by posting this statement.

-- The Bumper! (bump@bumpitybump.bump), January 31, 2004.

Some Jews beleived, and became Christains, they where in factthe earliest Christans.Some didnt beleive, simpley becuse they hinestly beleived he didnt fulfll prophecy. Others where threatened on a political level. Its like everythign else, compelxe with layers.

As tp negative reaction, well, the liberal Media hates it to, but loved Scorsessies Last temptration that "SHowed a Human Jesus."

Lets face it, Jesus is offensive to some oeople because he offers a mesage of their own imperfection, thats hard for soem poeopel to face.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 31, 2004.

Like many groups who have been viciously persecuted throughout history, the Jewish people are extremely and understandably sensitive about anything that might stir up negative feelings toward them. It was only 60 years ago that millions of European Jews were murdered as part of the "final solution."

I'm sure this film, which I am very anxious to see, will not cause any problems for any people of the Jewish faith. Their concern is related to the fact that many Christians misunderstood the gospel message,... pinning the death of Jesus on "Jews" rather than on mankind. The passion narratives took place among Jesus'own people, fellow Jews. They were the people of the time and place where Jesus taught. They represent all of us. We are the people who would have accepted or rejected Christ if we were there at the time. The first Christians were Jews. Jewish Christians. Over time, as the religion moved away from Jerusalem, and spread through out the empire, Christians began to see themselves as separate from Jews which has ultimately lead to the conception that it was these "other" people,..."The Jews that killed Christ." This misconception has often been used as the basis for persecutions with horrifying results.

It should be noted that it would have most likely been the Sanhedrin, an elite sect of influentials(temple priests) who may have had enough power to be complicit in what was actually a Roman form of execution. The "everyman" of Judea had little if any real power.

Jews did not use crucifixtion as a form punishment. Still many even today blame "them" for Jesus death. This is why I believe some Jews are anxious about this film.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), February 01, 2004.

Learn to spell before preaching, JG. Sewing bees are a different subject You come here sowing discord and calumny. A devil on the prowl.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2004.

Jay says:

"The answer lies in the FACT that the Roman Catholic cult killed more Jews during the crusades and inquisition, than Hitler ever did."

Do you even know how many people were killed in the crusades and inquisition? Before you come in here and make accusations perhaps you ought to read some real information on the subject, not some propaganda. Second, there have been sinners in the church, no doubt about that, but the reason we have a church is because we are sinners. If we were free of sin, we wouldn't need a Savior.

My question to you is are you here for dialogue and to learn or are you just pushing an agenda? If you are pushing an agenda I am afraid that you will find yourself to be quite frustrated here. If you are not afraid of the truth however, I think you will find a lot of wise people in this forum.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

Muslims and Jews did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition because they were not baptized. The Spanish Inquisition held trials for Catholic heretics. If you were a member of another religion, you were not under the juristication of the Inquisition. In case anyone was wondering. There are a number of good historical books out now on the Inquisition, no one need rely on propaganda anymore.

Hitler killed approximately 6,000,000 jews.

It is estimated that around 32,000 people were killed during the entire 340 years of the Inquisition's existence. In the Spanish Inquisition the estimate is approximately 11,000 dead.

During the Paupers War during the Protestant Reformation approximately 100,000 people died by the hands of Protestants.

Saddam Hussan was responsible for the deaths of approximately 1,000,000 people.

So, no, the Inquisition not only did not kill more people than Hitler, but the Inquisition did not kill more people than a lot of people, in much shorter periods of time than the Inquisition.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

I was watching ABC World News Tonight this evening, and they had a segment about the movie being promoted by other churches--mostly Evangelical Christian churches. One of the chuches bought 18,000 tickets! Very interesting.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 12, 2004.

Gibson is a great actor and director no doubt but that doesnt give him the right to manipulate the word of God and make up facts from his imagination. Negative reaction. Why? Because its a fairy tale not the truth its Gibsons version.I just cant believe some christian groups are supporting this movie without sceptism just like teenage groupies they follow blind/dumbfounded. When the anti-christ will try to rule the world he wont have much diffuculty im sure he will decieve many many many people.

God save us all!!

-- Jim Siriotis (jimmy2035@hotmail.com), March 05, 2004.

what, jim, did Mr. Gibson make up to put in the movie that is not the word of God?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 05, 2004.

Jim I think you are greately mistaken. Well said Paul.

-- Ramanie Weerasinghe (lilanw@yahoo.com), March 05, 2004.

Jim,

"The Passion of Christ" by Mel Gibson is based on the Truth while "Left Behind" is based on Lies.

-- (Rapture_is_@_.Lie), March 05, 2004.

Jim S, Why not consider the immense good Mel Gibson is accomplishing by just giving non-Catholics the opportunity to contemplate the mystery of our Redemption? Name one other Catholic movie producer/ director- who has set forward a distinctly Catholic film, of this importance.--? We must be thankful that non- Catholics have loved this film. Many of them, and even many Jews will find faith and conversion because of Gibson's trust in God. It's really shameless to belittle him about it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2004.

Will Mel Evangelize Evangelicals? See the article at:

http://www.ncregister.com/current/0229lead3.htm

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 05, 2004.

Hmm, having listened to all the bad press this film got I was at a loss for words having viewed it. It is the same story that we have all read, give or take a few scenes, and yet why aren't these same people calling for the Gospels to be banned? Why didn't they cry out when Zefferelli's film hit our screens 20 years ago.

Things are getting so crazy that to be politically correct you have to rewrite history. Poppycock! We all know the story, however people seem to miss the fact that we are talking about redemption and not just a story in time. Fact is Jesus came to give his life for our sins, even Judas played a part in that drama just like Mary's "Fiat voluntas tuas", without the condemnation of Jesus or his crucification would we have been safed? Would scripture have been fullfilled? Jesus was a Jew and we Christians are also of the Jewish tradition, we worship the same God the Father, Yaweah!.

I think people need to get a life and not worry about being politically correct.

That said, I enjoyed the film, I appreicated the fact that Gibson did use a real olive grove, well the trees look real to me, or perhaps they were just sets in Cine Cita! The flagellation at the pillar was a bit OTT, I don't think God nor man could have survived such a beating. But all in all it was a seriously good film on the topic. No harm in putting the cat among the pigeons in Hollywood! Well done Mel!

Pax!

-- pax frates (peacebrothers@hotmail.com), March 20, 2004.

I agree with Pax.This is just more PC drivel, peopel tryign to be vicitms and play hurt. The Jews ( As a people) don come off badly at all, thou Ciaphas does.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 21, 2004.

The bible is a translation of a translation of an oral story-telling tradition predating (nearly) universal literacy. The bible is full of contradictions. The gospels contradict each other. It's based on history, but not history. Gibson's story is cast in a limited timefram-it's out of context. The casting is prejudicial, and yes, some 'facts' are wrong. *Jesus' cross is manufactured in the Temple. This unbiblical and a-historical scene is analogous to asserting that the ovens of Auschwitz were constructed in the Vatican itself under the watchful eyes of Pius XII. * The Roman governor Pilate--who, like all Roman governors of Judea, had the authority to appoint Jewish high priests--is intimidated and manipulated by a luxuriously garbed priest Caiaphas. Analogy: Those poor Nazi occupiers of mid-20th century Rome could not resist Vatican pressure to rid the city of Jews.

The problem with lumping all first-century Jewish leaders together is in Linda Chavez's August 6th CNSNews.com commentary. She said, among other things, that "Christ's death on the cross may have been ordered by Pontius Pilate at the urging of the Pharisee Caiaphas--following the judgment of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish religious court that judged Jesus guilty of blasphemy..." Any "New Testament 101" student knows that Caiaphas was not a Pharisee; he was, rather, part of the priestly aristocracy in league with Rome. That the Pharisees are the group who give rise to Rabbinic Judaism and ultimately the Judaism of today only makes her mistake worse. As for Pilate, he could not possibly have cared less about blasphemy: he executes Jesus as a political threat, the presumed "King of the Jews" as the inscription on the cross reads.

* Jews repeatedly and spontaneously torture Jesus, whereas the Romans need Satan's prompting. This is tantamount to saying that "the Jews" in Dachau tortured fellow Jews just because they felt like it, whereas the Nazis needed supernatural incitement.

I could go on, but you get the point. Question your questions, not the answers.

-- Adam A (aadi@optonline.net), April 08, 2004.

Adam,

-you write with conviction and authority...

My question is what do you base your authority on? Do I just take your word for Truth?

"The bible is a translation of a translation of an oral story-telling tradition predating (nearly) universal literacy."

-do you suggest that the bible contains error? Specifically, what is or are some examples of the error(s).

"The bible is full of contradictions. The gospels contradict each other."

-again, specifically point out at least one of the many contradictions the bible is full of.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 08, 2004.

The bible is a translation of a translation of an oral story-telling tradition predating (nearly) universal literacy.

{This is a lie. sorry. The Bibel is NOT a translation of a translation of an oral hisotry. The Oral Hisotry ended with Moses. Further, Oral Traditions could be passe don with remarkable accuracy. This is not liek the game telephone, these peopel kenw how o retain infomaiton, ad even oral cultures today have remarkable accuracy n preserving information, en accorss thousands of miles, some remote regions of asia that rley on irla traiditon still have the stries perfectly rpeserved. All of which is unimportant when you look at the fac tthat form the time of Moses onward, the Jewish Culture was a wirtten one, not an oral one. The Porophets did not have their messages pased on by oral transmisison. They write books. Likewise, slomon and David write theBooks of Psalms, proverbs,a nd ecclesiasteis. ect. The New testement wss wirtten within livign Memorty of Jesus. This sint Oral.

Now, as to your other lie, a translation of a translation. This also is false. The Biblke origionated iN hebrew, withthe Old Testement, or Aramaic ( The book of Daniel.) But remained UNTRANSLATED until the tme the Septuigent came about. even today, orthodox Jews read the origional Hebrew texts. These arent translations of translations. These are ht eorigional Hebrew texts. I happen to own a copy of the Mesorotic Hebrew. Likewise, the new Testement was witten in greek. It wa snto wirtten in one languag and translated ot anlother only ot be retranslated into yet another. it was written iN Greek.

Most Bibles in english we have today are also not translatiosn of translations Aside fom the Douay Rheoms Bible, which is a translation fo the Latin Vulgate, most Boibles o the market are translations of the origional hebrew and Greek, NOT translations of an earlier translartion.

Thus, the King James Bibel was taken form the Hebrew and Greek texts direclty. So was the NIV, the NRSV, the New Jerusalem, the Jerusalem, the New american Bible, the American Standard,t he New Smerican Standard, the Basic english, the New King James, and others. They are translations, btu they arent translatiosn of a former translation, btu rahter translations of the origional.

we also have better manuscropt support for the new Tstement than any other work of ancient liturature, and the vast number of manuscrpts in agreement gives mroe wiight to the New testement than any other anceitn source. The Dead Sea Scrolls record the Old Testement, and are the oldest copies available. They ar eidenticle to the Modern Jewish Bible texts. We know the Bible is reliable, and only soemone massively ignorant of this fact can make claims liek you have.To disocunt the Biel as unreliable is to toss aside all of ancient liturature.}-Zarove

The bible is full of contradictions.

{No, its not. This is a claim made by peopel who, like you, seek to discreidt it, that is taken as unqueastioned fact, that is nonetheless unsupported by any real evidnece. yes, you can go to websites liek Skeptics Annotated Bibel and get "Cntradictions", however, most are not relaly contradictions at al, but are rather distortiosn of the text and what it means. Makign a statement " The Bible is full of contradictions" doesnt prove it is, and no one should just take yor word for it.}-Zarove

The gospels contradict each other.

{Not really. I hear this all the itme. The Cntradictions hwoever aren't relaly their.}-Zarove

It's based on history, but not history.

{Another lie. It is hisotry, and among the best Hisotry we have of the ancient world. it may not conform tot he standards of Modern Journalism, but it IS History. And since you ciam its not, then you are theone that has ot make proof o the assertion.}-Zarove

Gibson's story is cast in a limited timefram-it's out of context.

{This si the only legitimate complaint you have made. However, it was a well doen peice and i am sure we all know what went on.}-Zarove

The casting is prejudicial, and yes, some 'facts' are wrong.

{The castign is predjuicial? How can the actirs you seelct be predjudicial?}-Zarove

*Jesus' cross is manufactured in the Temple.

{Not int he verison I saw... this is the complaint of soemone cuting and pastign an argument. Be hoenst Adam, did you watch the movie? Or are you just repeatign old charges.}-Zarove

This unbiblical and a-historical scene is analogous to asserting that the ovens of Auschwitz were constructed in the Vatican itself under the watchful eyes of Pius XII.

{Yup, Cut-And-Paste. You didn't write this, you just took it. More htan likely you didn't watch the movie r else you woudl knwo that the scene tyo describe isn't actually in the movie.}-Zarove

* The Roman governor Pilate--who, like all Roman governors of Judea, had the authority to appoint Jewish high priests--is intimidated and manipulated by a luxuriously garbed priest Caiaphas. Analogy: Those poor Nazi occupiers of mid-20th century Rome could not resist Vatican pressure to rid the city of Jews.

{No analogy. This can acutlaly happen. even though Pilate was in charge, the Prists culd syill rally a mob, and their was a HUGE mob in front of Pilat that wanted Jesus executed. The fact is that this situation is plausable. Also, the Nazi refeences get old, their is NO connection in allegory between Pilate being forced to execute Jesus and the Nazis beign gorced byt eh Vatcan t Kill Jews. You assume pilate woudl NOT bow tot he demands of th priests, and had Jesus killed himself. You shift the blame onto the roman govnermor, and claim it wous have been impossible otherwise.

Ti contradicts the Biblical narrative, which was depicted nt eh film. It is also ahistorical.

Another hisotical event proves my point.

Th romans wher ein charge of Judea at the time. Therefore the Jews had to do as the romans said. thus the romans woudt bakc down for the Jews. The Romans wanted ot place a statue of Jupiter in the temple. By your ligic, the jew sowudl have no choice bu to obey, an the romans woudlnt put up wuh any resistance.

Thus, in yor midn, isotyr shoudl record that the romans dd ithis. However, the reality is that the Jews threaened rebellion. The romans backwed down. The romans may have beenin charge, btut hey wont face down a mob like that.

Pilate woudln face down Ciaphas because ciaphas had a gorup pf people on his side and Pilate feared a riot. That sin swholly implausable, and nthign at all like the Nazi's. Only an idiot woudl think your analogy ( which sint yours, its stilen) makes sence.}- Zarove

The problem with lumping all first-century Jewish leaders together is in Linda Chavez's August 6th CNSNews.com commentary. She said, among other things, that "Christ's death on the cross may have been ordered by Pontius Pilate at the urging of the Pharisee Caiaphas--following the judgment of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish religious court that judged Jesus guilty of blasphemy..." Any "New Testament 101" student knows that Caiaphas was not a Pharisee; he was, rather, part of the priestly aristocracy in league with Rome.

{No one blames al Jewush Leaders. The blame rests mainly on the upper crust, as you said, but the film dipicts that. Jews are heroes in the Passion as much as villains. jesus was a Jew. His fllowers where jews. His enemies where jews. The romans were just their, but this si a jewish story, so naturlaly everyone nvovled is jewish.No one lumps all Jesish leaders togather, except detractors makign straw man arguments.}-Zarove

That the Pharisees are the group who give rise to Rabbinic Judaism and ultimately the Judaism of today only makes her mistake worse.

{So far no mikstake was exposed excet yours. You try t blame the romans...you pretend that the roman govnernor Pilat woudl never back down form the jewish Mob that formed in fornt of his palace.

It doesnt mater that Pilate wa sin charge. It woednt matter that he seeelcted the High Prist. The Preist was threatenign a riot.}-Zarve

As for Pilate, he could not possibly have cared less about blasphemy: he executes Jesus as a political threat, the presumed "King of the Jews" as the inscription on the cross reads.

{Nope. He executed Jesus based on wantign to avert the aformentioned riot. I know you wan hte Jewish leaders ot look lik the good guys, wsiwtch the fcus on the romans and say the Gospels changed events to make the romans look good and the jews bad as ot t upset the romans, but you relaly ae no evidnece, no one vblames al the jews fr Jesus's death, and their is every reason to beleive that a roman govenror WOULD back down and aquiese tt he demands of a prist who has on his side an army of angry followers.}-Zarove

* Jews repeatedly and spontaneously torture Jesus, whereas the Romans need Satan's prompting. This is tantamount to saying that "the Jews" in Dachau tortured fellow Jews just because they felt like it, whereas the Nazis needed supernatural incitement.

{This is idiocy. Satan showed up in the rial of Jesus, and in the crowd outside of Pilates Palace. Satan was inciting the jess int he flm as well. Only soemoe who didnt watch the film woudl miss Satans appearance. he did NOT just incite the romans, he DID Incite the Jews. Again, did you watch the movie, or are you jts repeatign charges that are unsubstantiated because you think Christain Bashign is fun?}-Zarove

I could go on, but you get the point. Question your questions, not the answers.

{Why don't you queation your own queatsions.

Why scoudln Pilate have bakced down? Just because he was in charge? Other times the jews threatened rebellion local auhtorities backed off. This wa the pattern until 70 AD. If the rmans went too far in tryign to conform the Jews, the jws threatend rebellion and te romans backed off.

Pilate backeing off form Ciaphas's demand doesn't relaly sit as an oddity that coudln have happened in Hisotry. Again, Pilate feared a riot breakign out. That is why he wa sindecisive.

Other claims you make are idiotic.

Like sayign Satan had t incite the romans and not the Jews. Satan DID Incite the jews in the film. He is seen in the crown of Jews who want Jesus Crucified. Saying he wasnt htier proves you either didnt see the actual movie or else are prone to lying. Or didnt pay attention. Likewise, the criss wasnt made t he temple in the movie.

Also, the Bibles "COntradictions" arent a well establushed fact, justa c ommon charge.

Why don't yo queatsion why you are here bothering us with hate fulled drivel\?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 08, 2004.