WIESENTHAL CENTER URGES MEL GIBSON TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE PASSION

Jesus was a Jew. The first Christians were Jews.

Mel Gibson has a right to make this movie anyway he wants. The crucifixion of Jesus is an historical event. I find it amazing that people don't want an historical event to be portrayed accurately. I hope he doesn't end up watering it down to satisfy these whiners.

Maybe we Southerners should have protested during the making of the movie "Gettysburg" to have it changed to reflect the Confederate army getting at least a draw in that battle; after all we could have argued that showing the Yankees winning could lead to violence and hate mail against Southerners.

 

"Our scholarly panel's "agenda" was hardly sinister: We were concerned with biblically fidelity, historical accuracy, and the avoidance of anti-Semitism. While I have not seen Mr. Gibson's film, I have seen a script that has anti-Jewish components. Here are three examples that are already part of media coverage:

* 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 illustrated 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. "

http://beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/130/story_13051_1.html&storyID=13051&boardID=62129

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/news/dramatizing_the_death_of_jesus.htm
 


Example: Will the proposed script take Pilate washing his hands of the Jesus question (found only in Matthew) and combine it with Pilate having Jesus whipped to try to release him (found only in John) and combine that with Herod Antipas being unwilling to condemn Jesus (found only in Luke)?


* Will the proposed script enlarge upon gospel episodes in order to intensify the drama?


Example: Will those Jewish individuals who demand Jesus’ crucifixion, whose numbers none of the gospels specify, be portrayed as a few dozen people led by the Temple leaders, or as a Cecile B. DeMille-like cast of thousands? Will incidents in the gospels describing Jesus as struck by Jewish individuals be turned into Jesus being beaten nearly to death by them?


* Will the proposed script be informed by the best historic knowledge currently available?


Example: Will the undisputed historic fact that Caiaphas the high priest relied on Pilate’s good will to retain his position as leader of the Temple be made clear in the proposed script? Or will the high priest be depicted as intimidating or bullying a weak and spineless Pilate, contrary to historical evidence that Pilate was not slow to use violence to maintain Roman order? Will the script make clear that imperial Rome ruled Jewish lands, and that Rome brutally crucified many persons during its rule?


"after all we could have argued that showing the Yankees winning could lead to violence and hate mail against Southerners."
I would assume it would lead to bad feelings towards the folks from the north.

 

Those events "found only" once are still true events, if the Bible says they did occur.

As far a Gibson's movie, I eagerly await its release to see what it really depicts. If it includes non-historical events such as constructing the cross in the Temple, I will join the chourus against it. However, if the objections amount to the kind of unwarranted PC attacks that shortened the theatrical run of "Gods and Generals," I will defend it.

 

By their own admission, they haven't seen the film and the script they refer to was an unauthorized rough draft so do they really have any credibility to speak on this?

 

I think it is highly hypocritical of them to subject people (rightly so I might add) year after year to holocost documentaries too remind us of mistreatment of Jews and then to be overly sensitive because of an historically accurate portrayal of Christ's passion.

 

I'm with the good Major B on this one. Want to see the film for myself before making any judgments. Heresay is still only heresay. Let's wait and see....

PS: I really don't believe Mel has any political anti-Jewish axes to grind.

Besides, it was technically the Romans who crucified Jesus. Historically, the Romans were masters at crucifixion, and crucified thousands of people. Death by stoning was Jewish law.

 

Acts 2:
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.

Luke tells us who crucified Him.

 

"By their own admission, they haven't seen the film and the script they refer to was an unauthorized rough draft so do they really have any credibility to speak on this?"
Actually they claim what they read was probably the shooting script.

Actually my personal interest in this film is going to be 'professional'. I have a degree in church history and I have read the works of Anna Catherina Emmerich.
I am actually surprised that all those Evangelical Christians are so positive towards this project. The little reliable information that has come out suggests a very Roman Catholic movie.
I don't know what amazes me more, Gibson making a film that would have been considered outdated in the late 1930's, or all those US Protestants that usually despise Catholicism to a degree that is unwaranted being so happy about it.

 

Well, grasshopper, if you want to be SUPER technical about it (seems like you missed my point) - He gave Himself.

Gal.1
[4] Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:




You know what eagles do to grasshoppers?

 

No, it wasn't the working script, it was an unauthorized rough draft.

 

"No, it wasn't the working script, it was an unauthorized rough draft."
That's what Gibson's side claims. I am in no position to find out who is telling the truth.

 

Making a movie about the gospel of my Lord Jesus Christ is never outdated.

 

"Making a movie about the gospel of my Lord Jesus Christ is never outdated."
Absolutely true. Making a film about the death of Jezus based on the visions of Anna Catherina Emmerich on the other hand...


I will be very surprised if the film doesn't follow the stations of the cross
http://198.62.75.1/www1/jsc/TVCmain.html

 

Not that long ago, there was a lot of hooplah over a movie called "Bruce Almighty". Many who had not seen the movie accused it of mocking GOd, and being blasphemous. As it turns out, those who criticized the movie without seeing it were dead wrong. I reserved judgement until I saw the movie for myself, and was not surprised to find out that those who were against the film were mistaken.

If I've learned one thing, it's to reserve judgement until I view it for myself. On this film I will see it for myself and reserve judgement until then. Those who critique the movie without seeing it have no basis with which to critique. As such, I don't consider their critiques authoritative.

 

I agree. One of the things I thought was funny about "Bruce Almighty" was that the people who condemned it so loudly here on Baptistboard had never even seen it and were basing their objections on things that never even occured in the movie.

In the same way, to a man, those who condemn "The Passsion" have not seen it and those who have, including Jews, Michael Medved and Rabbi Daniel Lapin (often referred to as the "Jewish Billy Graham) have been enthusiastic in their praise for the movie.