WP: Ideas About Christ's Death Surveyed ("Passion" effect)

[DeepModem Mom]

Ideas About Christ's Death Surveyed
Growing Minority: Jews Responsible
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 3, 2004; Page A03


The percentage of Americans who say Jews were responsible for Christ's death is rising, particularly among blacks and young people, according to a nationwide poll taken since the release of Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ."

The poll released yesterday by the Pew Research Center in Washington is the first statistical evidence that the movie's box-office success may be associated with an increase in anti-Jewish feeling, although social scientists cautioned that cause and effect are not clear.

In the March 17 to 21 telephone survey of 1,703 randomly selected adults, 26 percent said Jews were responsible for Christ's death, up from 19 percent in an ABC News poll that asked the same question in 1997.

The increase was especially pronounced among two groups. The portion of people younger than 30 who say Jews were responsible for killing Jesus has approximately tripled, from 10 percent in 1997 to 34 percent today. The portion of African Americans who hold that view has doubled, from 21 percent to 42 percent....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45637-2004Apr2.html

[w4rma]

1. This can't be good. Btw, the Roman government killed Christ, imho. (nt)

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. BTW, Christ was Jewish

'Nuff said.

[Dhalgren]

53. Come on Muddle,

Jews can kill Jews - its happened for thousands of years. But in this case, of course the Jews didn't kill Jesus, the Romans did (at least according to the NT). This is just more RW bullshit and "fundy" squint.

[Eye and Monkey]

57. How do we know that anyone killed Jesus?

How do we know that Jesus ever really existed?

[ThatPoetGuy]

2. Is this a surprise?

My thoughts on seeing the movie -- well, after "Jeeeeeeezus!" -- my main thoughts were, "Everything in this story has been skewed to present Pontius Pilate as the helpless tool of a controlling Jewish lobby."


I remember thinking, "People are going to die because of this ugly movie."


I wasn't at all surprised either, when I found out that Mel Gibson had refused a request by Jewish groups who had asked him to include a statement against anti-Jewish violence.


And no, I'm not Jewish. Gibson and I have that in common. But I'm not an evil scumbag trying to push the world to violence, so Mel and I part company there.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

4. Sounds like you don't know your Bible

My thoughts on seeing the movie -- well, after "Jeeeeeeezus!" -- my main thoughts were, "Everything in this story has been skewed to present Pontius Pilate as the helpless tool of a controlling Jewish lobby."

Have you read the Bible? Matthew has Pilate "washing is hands" of Jesus' death. The crowds demand Jesus' death over Pilate's protests, and in fact chant "His blood be on us, and on our children." Not that I'm trying to defend such a view, but Gibson doesn't "skew" anything. He'd have to put a big sign that says "The Jews killed Christ, and Pilate is my homeboy!" to make it any more skewed than is in the Bible. I don't think he has to include a statement against anti-Jewish violence, I think such a statement is unneccesary and just some people looking to gloat "Ha ha, we bossed around Mel Gibson, look how big and important we are."

Also "evil scumbag trying to push the world to violence" is ridiculous. That's right, Mel Gibson is Hilter. :eyes:

[The Stranger]

14. Unfortunately, Blayde is correct.

You cannot read Matthew's writing and conclude anything else than that he is portrayed as innocent. The key is to understand why Matthew would be writing in this way.

[mmonk]

21. Pontius Pilate was brutal and cared less if anyone

he executed was truly guilty or innocent. Washing one's hands of something is a Jewish symbolism, not Roman. Biblical literalists have turned Matthews work into deadly meaning. Of course, Matthew is the only one to put the execution like he did. But taken out of the time it was written and then reinterpreted by the Greco-Roman world (to a more literal sense), Jews have suffered. I in no way think Mel Gibson is anti-Jewish. His father is another story. It's unfortunate Matthew's gospel was used for the movie.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

32. Pilate is blameless in almost all the Gospels

Matthew isn't the only one who more or less absolves Pilate. Luke even has Pilate sending Jesus off to Herod to try and avoid the situation entirely.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. Ahhh...another Gibson-hater who hasn't seen the movie but...

...feels compelled to post insulting comments about Mel Gibson anyway.

By the way, do you have a link to the article or documentation where Mel Gibson allegedly "refused a request by Jewish groups who had asked him to include a statement against anti-Jewish violence"?

I suggest that if you want to go after a REAL "evil scumbag trying to push the world to violence", try going after Junior and the rest of the NeoCons. They're folks that are ACTUALLY responsible for the loss of tens of thousands of Iraqis, Americans, British, Japanese, Italians, Spanish, and several other nationalities.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Pontius Pilate, Good Guy?

Wasn't good old Pontius Pilate recalled to Rome by Emperor Tiberias for having been too cruel with the people of Palestine?

Think about it. A bloodthristy Roman emperor recalls a local governor for being too cruel for his imperial discretion.

The only way that "the Jews" were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is because the local people were Jewish. Most of them, anyway. If this makes them "the Jews", then it makes George Bush "the Americans" and Mel Gibson "Hollywood".

--bkl

[Blayde Starrfyre]

5. Can this fairly be blamed on The Passion?

Now, not all of these people saw the Passion, right? Isn't it just as likely that this increase was spurred on by people misrepresenting the message of the Passion? I mean it wasn't Mel Gibson who put the question of whether or not the Jews killed Christ out into public debate, it was the people who were bitching about how "The Passion says the Jews killed Christ!!!" before the movie even came out. What I am trying to say is that this level of debate, with the subsequent rise in people blaming the Jews, would not have happened on this scale if it weren't for people getting the cross and the nails out for Gibson before the damned thing was even released.

[NewHampshireDem]

7. No, but ...

Maybe it can be blamed on all the "Christians" who pointed to the "vast Jewish-Hollywood-liberal conspiracy" to keep this movie from being made. The subtext of the message is clear--"the Jews who run Hollywood don't want you to know that they killed your Savior." Gibson is just a tool--like Bush, he's just not smart enough to pull it off himself.

[DemBones DemBones]

15. I never heard any Christians complain about anyone

trying to stop the movie from being made. Mel Gibson used his own money to make this film so there was no question that it would be made. All the noise was made by two or three Jewish people, notably Abe Foxman of the ADL, who told the public over and over that the movie would say that the Jews killed Jesus. I think all that talk is what's brought the idea into the public consciousness, not the movie itself.

[NewHampshireDem]

36. Well, here are a couple of sources ...

Here's Gibson himself alluding to the problems of making the film in Hollywood, on the O'Reilly Factor

"O'REILLY: But you're a pretty savvy guy. You've been around Hollywood a long time. You never expected to be treated fairly, did you?

GIBSON: Of course not. No one really gets a fair shake. You have to negotiate the -- you have to negotiate the traps as best as possible. It's -- Hollywood's a mine field."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112436,00.html

And another, this straight from NewsMax

Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly said tonight that the elite media have been vicious in their attacks on Mel Gibson and are out to destroy him.

"You have an elite media which an agenda and the agenda is destroy Mel Gibson because we don't like the concept of what he's doing, basing a movie on the Gospels - we don't like that - so we are going to destroy him personally," O'Reilly said during an interview on "The O'Reilly Factor" with New Yorker writer Peter Boyer, who agreed with the host that some of the media attacks on Gibson and his film "The Passion" have been "hateful."

Boyer, who has written a 15-page New Yorker story about Gibson and his film, explained that "There are a group of folks who the minute Mel Gibson announced he was going to make a film about the last hours of Jesus Christ based on the New Testament - based on the Gospels - there were folks who were worried by that, and I'm only guessing that these columnists - these reporters are attuned to that point of view."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/15/223513.shtml

And yet another, from the ever erudite Brent Bozell

"I thought Hollywood was supposed to be a place that celebrates a bold artistic vision. A film that challenges the staid, calculated studio system is usually admired. But boldness and independence are not winning Mel Gibson many admirers in the usual critical corners. He is making and privately financing a movie about the passion and death of Jesus Christ."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20030815.shtml

Hell, even the Hollywood Reporter ran this a piece that started
""Passion" power: Before Newmarket Films' mega-blockbuster launch of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," insiders were speculating that the controversial film might hurt Gibson's acting career.

Although some wondered if he'd ever work again, as it turns out the real question is whether Gibson will ever need to work again given "Passion's" divine profits. Not only has "Passion" managed to turn around what was a decidedly lackluster year at the boxoffice, it's also impacted on Hollywood in ways that are likely to alter how the film industry does business for years to come."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/grove_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000458215

How about this from that piece of trash, "Tales from the Left Coast"

In “Tales From the Left Coast,” I reveal how the same Hollywood that holds itself up as a place of tolerance and inclusion is hostile to folks who are conservative, Republican or Christian.

Case in point is Mel Gibson, a devout Catholic who is being skewered on the "liberal" barbecue pit of Tinseltown.

Mel made a mistake because he openly professed his faith in - dare I say it? - Jesus Christ.

As Jennifer O’Neill says in “Tales,” “There are a lot of ‘closet Christians’ in Hollywood because they innately know there exists black-balling and prejudice against professed believers in the entertainment business.”

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/16/170439.shtml

But, hey, I guess because you didn't see it, I made it up.

[R Hickey]

6. Superstitious people always think their myths make them good.

Did the Jews kill Paul Bunion, too? To the true believer, what makes one myth more worthy of argumentation and belief than another?

Is a person who believes all myths equally, a good person or a bad person?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and what type of dance do they do? Is it line dancing, like the 'River Dance?' Or is it dirty dancing?

Most Christians believe Jesus's mother was a virgin. OK. They often believe in goblins and ghosts that are holy. Good Christians believe that white pigeons have magical powers.

Many Christian grown-ups actually believe they will somehow migrate to a mythical land after they die, where they will float on clouds and strum harps.

Some even claim say they will leave little piles of clothing, and that they will fly directly up into the sky, to a magical land located just beyond (I guess) the jet stream.

[xchrom]

8. further evidence of the erosion

of american intellectual capacity.
there are no witnesses to the events that took pace then -- just snatches of what partisan representatives want to portray.
and now mel gibson, sans hair shirt and flail, steps up and portrays his version.
none of this is ''real'' except for things like a rise in anti-semitic feelings.

[Roaming]

31. There are no witnesses to Julius Caesar having lived, but we still

know that he did and the things that he did while he was alive. It's a belief based on reliable manuscript (and archeological) evidence. The same holds true for the Bible. In fact, we have more original manuscript (and archeological) evidence for the events that took place in the New Testament, and for Christ, than for just about any other historical figure.

[Eye and Monkey]

38. Perhaps you're unaware of the difference between "belief" and "fact".

"we have more original manuscript (and archeological) evidence for the events that took place in the New Testament, and for Christ, than for just about any other historical figure."

You are factually incorrect.

[Roaming]

41. Here is some background that proved it for me

The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the first century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century that contest the New Testament texts.

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first century document.

And there is much, much more that can be added to the above. Be glad to share if you are interested in more.

[Eye and Monkey]

44. "were all written before the close of the first century." - Incorrect

"If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D."
There is no historical record that documents this in any way.

"This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings."
You've flipped the truth to use it to your advantage. The documents were written long after the time that they could have been contested. That's why there was no one to directly contest.

[Roaming]

49. The documents were written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses

to the crucifixion and clearly indicate when the crucifixion took place. The earliest copies are closer to the actual historical event than any of the following:

Julius Caesar -- writings were recorded in 100-44 B.C. but most recent copies of manuscripts date from 900 A.D. 1000 (10 copies)

Aristotle -- writings were recorded 384-322 B.C., and most recent copies of manuscripts dated 1100 A.D. 1400 (49 copies)

Sophocles -- writings were recorded 496-406 B.C., and our most recent copies of manuscripts in existence date 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs (193 copies)

Homer (Iliad) -- writings were recoreded 900 B.C.; most recent copies of manuscripts in existence are from 400 B.C. (643 copies)

Though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy.

Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other 100%. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actually amount of textual variation of any concern at all is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have an extremely accurate compilation of the original documents.

[Dhalgren]

55. The earliest, extant copy of the New Testament

dates to the 900s C.E. We have quotations from the text in the writings of early Church Fathers, but that's about it.

[Roaming]

59. Earliest copy of John was written within 29 years after crucifixion--

3."Deissmann was convinced that p52 was written well within the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-38) and perhaps even during the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117)" (Footnote #2 found on pg. 39 of The Text of the New Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger, 2nd Ed. 1968, Oxford University Press, NY, NY). This is a fragment found by John Rylands and currently resides John Rylands Library, Manchester, England.

[Eye and Monkey]

56. A great disservice to your belief to repeat fabricated facts.

The 6000 documents that your site refers to simply do not exist in the form that the website you quote claims and you chose to repeat. The documents that do exist show the pattern you are trying to belittle - they are copies and re-copies (and with a great deal more inaccuracy than you/the website would have us believe) from later centuries.

A sincere belief in your religion should be enough. It is not necessary to repeat fabricated "proofs" to justify your religion.

[Roaming]

60. A sincere belief in anything is never enough...

I can sincerely believe that the next airplane I get in will get me there safely, but if the plane crashes I was sincerely wrong.

The Bible itself encourages us to test all things.

Christianity ultimately is based on faith, yes. There is no science or historical document that can prove God exists and that Jesus died for our sins.

However, the faith we have does not need to be a BLIND faith. God gave us brains for a reason. We are encouraged to use our reasoning and intellect. And in doing so, testing for ourselves and working out questions, is so incredibly edifying. It actually strengthens my faith to know that my God wants all of me -- not just my faith and my heart, but my mind, too.

Respectfully,

[Eye and Monkey]

63. Yes, if the plane crashes, blind faith will not "uncrash" it.

And neither will repeating fabricated documentation that says it landed without incident.

I encourage all to believe as they will, heart, soul, mind - in their own way. By all means, explore a side that intellectually appeals to and rewards you.

I am certainly not advocating blind faith. To misrepresent my comments is disingenuous, as are the fabrications you've presented.

I'm merely asking that you not confuse your faith with fact when advocating about your faith to others.

[0007]

9. South Park had the best message yet about the "Passion of Christ"

[0007]

10. "Letters From Earth" by Mark Twain is well worth reading.

May be hard to find in the Southern parts of United States, as many believe the book is sacrilegious.

[Trajan]

11. Letters from the Earth, Mark Twain ...

Ask and Ye shall find ...

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm

Letters from the Earth

Contents: Letters From the Earth; Satan's Letter; Letter II; Letter III; Letter IV; Letter V; Letter VI; Letter VII; Letter VIII; Letter IX; Letter X; Letter XI.


The Creator sat upon the throne, thinking. Behind him stretched the illimitable continent of heaven, steeped in a glory of light and color; before him rose the black night of Space, like a wall. His mighty bulk towered rugged and mountain-like into the zenith, and His divine head blazed there like a distant sun. At His feet stood three colossal figures, diminished to extinction, almost, by contrast -- archangels -- their heads level with His ankle-bone.

When the Creator had finished thinking, He said, "I have thought. Behold!"

He lifted His hand, and from it burst a fountain-spray of fire, a million stupendous suns, which clove the blackness and soared, away and away and away, diminishing in magnitude and intensity as they pierced the far frontiers of Space, until at last they were but as diamond nailheads sparkling under the domed vast roof of the universe.

At the end of an hour the Grand Council was dismissed.

-snip-

There ya go ...

[0rganism]

16. Yep, sometimes SP hits the nail right on the head, they got it dead-on

"The Passion of the Jew"

I wonder if Mel saw that episode? Hehehehe...

[smirkymonkey]

18. What was it??

I love that show, but don't have cable (long story)? Can you share it with us? Thanks!

[Whoa_Nelly]

12. I refuse to see the movie

But, I did enjoy the recent South Park satire calling it "The Passion of The Child", and showing Gibson as absolutley nuts :-)

[DemBones DemBones]

17. Tomorrow is Palm Sunday, aka Passion Sunday, when

Christians commemorate the entrance of Christ into Jerusalem, when the crowds waved palm fronds at him, and begin the remembrance of the Passion of Christ, which continues during the following week, Holy Week. A lot of people at DU seem to know very little about Christian practice or theology so I expect there are a large number of such uninformed people in the general population, a much larger number than in the past.

In the Christian churches I'm familiar with, including several Protestant churches as well as the Roman Catholic Church, part of the Palm Sunday service is always the reading aloud of the gospel account of the Passion. In the service, the congregation reads the part of the crowd, telling Pilate "Crucify Him! Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" and "Let His blood be on us and on the heads of our children." The crowd who actually witnessed Christ's Passion and, according to the Bible, said those words, were Jews, at least for the most part. But in our church services, we Christians play the part of the crowd and accept the guilt for His Death on ourselves and our children. What role the Jews and the Romans played historically is theologicially unimportant; the guilt's on all of us, along with the responsibility to understand that we would do no better than those who were there did.

Unfortunately, Abe Foxman of the ADL made a lot of noise about Gibson's film, claiming it would say 'that the Jews killed Jesus." Lots of people who don't understand what Christianity teaches about Jesus's death heard all the talk in the news so the idea is now in the public consciousness. I believe it came from all the talk on cable channels, in particular, not from the movie.

Everyone knows the Germans were responsible for the Holocaust, but thinking people realize that it's not because the Germans are an evil people, but because one evil man and his evil henchmen manipulated them into the unthinkable. Thinking people also realize we could ourselves be manipulated into doing wrong, or turning our heads from evil, if we aren't on our guard.

Christians who see "The Passion of the Christ" ought to be most impressed by the meaning of Christ's sacrifice, and the enormity of it, not concerned with "who did it. " Christians should know that we all did it.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

19. Spot on

Unfortunately, Abe Foxman of the ADL made a lot of noise about Gibson's film, claiming it would say 'that the Jews killed Jesus." Lots of people who don't understand what Christianity teaches about Jesus's death heard all the talk in the news so the idea is now in the public consciousness. I believe it came from all the talk on cable channels, in particular, not from the movie.

That's what I was trying to say, though you did it far more effectively than I did. If some guy from the Assyrian Anti Defamation League got on all the cable shows and was shouting "The Passion says the Assyrians killed Christ!" we'd see a corresponding rise in the number of people who said that the Assyrians killed Christ, even though the movie obviously doesn't say that.

A lot of these people could learn something from Jesus, specifically "Take the plank out of your own eye."

[ultramega]

22. Why did Gibson choose Matthew?

Could it be that because the three other chapters that discuss the crucifiction don't include the mob scene that demonizes Jews? Also, apparently some of the scenes in the movie don't come from the bible at all, particularly the part where ravens pluck Christs eyes out, this apparently is lifted from the writings of some voraciously anti-semitic nun, and I've heard tell Gibson lifted some dialog from her, too. Don't remember her name, will never give Gibson a dime (see the movie), and I don't see how anyone could deny that Gibson is anti-semitic seeing how his father is a holocaust denier and Gibson's only comments about his fathers beliefs are that "my father has never told me a lie."

I'm more cynical. I think Gibson made the movie as anti-semitic as possible so's he could stir up a bunch of garbage to promote the movie (free p.r., can't beat it) and make about, say, $300,000,000 off of it and still come off as a demi-God to the fundies. Am I the only one who won't be shocked when he declares his candidacy for public office.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

30. Mob scene

The "mob scene" is also in Mark. Also, Matthew is the best know and most narrative Gospel.

If you have sworn not to see the movie, then stop talking about it. You make all of these ridiculous suppositions about how it's as "anti-semitic as possible" yet how would you know? Some of the people who are decrying this movie are guilty of some foul stuff: judging the movie and demonizing Gibson without having seen it, linking Gibson with his father's views with no evidence that he supports these views, asking Gibson to belittle and ridicule his father, it's all very shameful. Let's have some common sense people.

[ultramega]

40. No one has asked Gibson to "belittle and ridicule" his

father. They are simply asking him to come clean about whether he too is a holocaust denier, and I have yet to hear him publicly disagree with his father. This is no small point.

What I said was that Gibson made it as anti-semitic as possible so that he could get free p.r. He suceeded to the tune of $300,000,000.

Considering that a good hour of this movie is the "scourging" that so thrills true believers, I think one could get the all the info needed from the trailer. Having been raised a fundie, I kind of know the plot. Gibson made certain choices for this movie that cannot be denied, no matter how badly Christians want to make this into another "Moses". I liked what David Sterritt from "The Christian Science Monitor" said about the Passion, that it would become a cult film watched basically by "Faces of Death" types.

If I ever get a chance to see the movie without a cent of my money going to Gibson, I'll consider watching the scenes that don't have Gibson indulging in his homo-erotic sado-masochistic gore fetish, which was also evident in Braveheart. Take that one and run with it, sweetheart.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

47. Response

Why should Mel Gibson have to repudiate what his father says? "Sins of the father?" This is another little trap people have set for him. Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that he refused to put in a message about decrying anti-Jewish violence in there. I feel the same way about that that I do about this. It's a trap. If Gibson doesn't put that message in, they accuse him of anti-Semitism. If he does put in that unrelated message, then some small people get to gloat about besting a big Hollywood star. Gibson believes the "honor thy father and thy mother" command in the Bible. So again, they set the trap for him by either forcing him to dishonor his father with the ludicrous assumption that he MUST believe the same things his father does, or they can accuse him of anti-Semitism again.

Again, how can you claim he made it as anti-Semitic as possible if you didn't see it? And "homo-erotic?" Where did that come from?

[ultramega]

52. I agree with you.

If Mel repudiated his father, people would have one less reason to believe he's anti-semitic. The controversy would die down a little, less people would see his movie, and he wouldn't make near the dough. This way even Jewish people are going to see for themselves, hoping against hope it's all hype and Mel really didn't go out of his way to use the most anti-semitic version of the events possible to tell the story.

If you don't get the homo-erotic part, I don't feel right going there. It has to do with the portrayal of Satan in the film, and it's really, deep and heavy, and... and... well, you might explode or something.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

65. Uninformed rubbish

Don't remember her name, will never give Gibson a dime (see the movie), and I don't see how anyone could deny that Gibson is anti-semitic seeing how his father is a holocaust denier and Gibson's only comments about his fathers beliefs are that "my father has never told me a lie."

I'm more cynical. I think Gibson made the movie as anti-semitic as possible so's he could stir up a bunch of garbage to promote the movie (free p.r., can't beat it) and make about, say, $300,000,000 off of it and still come off as a demi-God to the fundies.

You haven't seen the movie, yet claim to not only know all about it but to have psychoanalysed Mel Gibson as well. When the Right does this they are rightly piloried, but I'm supposed to give this a pass?

I haven't seen The Passion of the Christ either (not religous) but I have read the Bible. Since even Gibson's most hysterical detractors don't deny it is a faithful recounting of the events described in the Bible. Which btw was written by Jews. Do you think the Bible is anti-semitic?

If so, what do you think we should do about it?

[54anickel]

20. There's a thread on this in editorials as well. I'll give the same

response here.

Do you suppose it has something to do with more people attending church and reading the Gospels now than before 1997. Remember that 9/11 brought a lot of new people as well as seldom attenders into the churches. Then let's not also forget the huge rise in TV evangelists and there's "Left Behind" book series. Not to mention Shrub's push for Armageddon and Christian Crusade.

No, the movie had little if anything to do with it. :eyes:

FWIW
I saw an interesting discussion the other night between an Orthodox Rabbi and D James Kennedy (TV preacher). The Rabbi made an interesting point in that American Christians know the Gospels quite well (lots of Bible reading) so the idea of the Jews being held responsible for the death of Christ is nothing new to them. On the other hand, he stated that many Orthodox Jews do not read the Torah much less the Gospels of the New Testament. He believes that has contributed to Jewish Orthodox objection to the movie. :shrug:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x43231

[rustydad]

23. Dead Wrong

Jesus was likely born in what is now Palestine but at an early age traveled to what is now India. There he studied under Hindu Masters. He returned to his homeland as a young man and began denouncing the practices of the Jewish leadership in the church. As he preached what the church considered heresy they plotted to kill him. The Romans allowed indigenous religions to exist and practice in their territories as it kept the people in line. The Jewish religious leaders had Jesus put on the cross although the Romans carried out the act for them.

As far as dying on the cross, it did not happen. He was lowered from the cross alive and taken to the burial cave. Later that night he was secreted out and eventually returned to India where he lived to an old age. There is a grave in India today that can be witnessed if one is inclined. Bob

[Trajan]

24. There is some speculation ...

that because of the similarities between Hindu philosophy and the sayings of Jesus, that Jesus visited India, or was 'hindu' .... Yet there is no DIRECT evidence that this is so ...

As far as spiriting away a live Jesus ? .... chuckles .... yeah: .. just as much evidence of THAT was well ..

There was a hebrew polemic, the Toldoth Yeshua (?), that said Jesus died, and was placed in a tomb .. but then was STOLEN by a farmer, who was angry at the followers crushing his gardens when they visited the tomb ... The farmer allegedly took the cadaver, and buried it elsewhere ....

Again: ... NO DIRECT EVIDENCE .... But just as good as any other story, and far more reasonable (In my view) than a resurrection and ascension ...

[Eye and Monkey]

39. "Yet there is no DIRECT evidence that this is so..."

You are doubtless referring to the fact that there is no direct evidence that there was ever a historical figure who could remotely be identified as the entity you call "Jesus".

[Roaming]

54. The Hebrew story about Christ's body being stolen is actually mentioned

in the Gospels (Matt. 27:62+) and it's not surprising to see that other Hebrew writings support this, as the chief priests of that day needed an explanation of what happened to the body.

Unless we had first-hand eyewitnesses to ANY event in history we would not have direct evidence. The only history we could rely upon is that which happens in our lifetime, or even just what happens in front of our very eyes. George Washington is not here to tell us about his life but we are confident he lived.

That's why historical, manuscript/archeological evidence is so important to us, to verify the events of history, and that includes the events of the Bible.

As for a reasonable explanation of Jesus' resurrection and ascension... Would it not be more unreasonable for a supernatural God to operate only in natural ways?

[progressivebydesign]

25. Wow. That makes much more sense..

I know the Christians will not be happy with my opinion here.. but frankly, I see the whole Bible story of Jesus being was framed the way it was 1) out of superstition and 2) for self serving purposes for one group over another. I still think the whole popular concept that we are to IGNORE the Old Testament, because it's inconvenient to recruiting new Christians, and only care about the New one.. is ridiculous.. The type of religious fervor we've seen after 9/11 is more like a mass hysteria, and it's a fad, and a money maker for giant multi-million dollar church organizatons, and corporations that sell all things Christian. There are Christian dating service, debt reduciton rip-off companies.. etc. Jesus, if he has any super-powers of knowledge, is pissed right now after being made in the Pet Rock of this century!!!

[Whoa_Nelly]

27. If you look back at history

in the Middle Ages, religion was a way to control the illiterate masses, and was the main politicking body of governance. It was during the early years A.D. that Roman Catholicism began, with an emphasis on recovering, maintaining and further acquiring the spoils of the wars. All the books of the Bible were decided upon as to whether they were divinely inspired or not by the Ecumenical Councils beginning under the rule of Constantine III, in Constintanople (now, Istanbul). It was Constantine I who originally embraced the concept of Christianity after the fall of the Roman Empire, and used his religious beliefs to control and shape the order of the new world.

I think it's cool that it may be possible that Jesus did survive and lived in India.

Did Jesus survive the crucifixion?
Did he live in India to age 100?
From Ch. 4 of In Search of the Loving God by Mark Mason

http://markmason.net/ch4ex2.htm

[progressivebydesign]

33. Wow.. true in the Middle Ages, true now!

"in the Middle Ages, religion was a way to control the illiterate masses, and was the main politicking body of governance" Nothing really changes, does it?

[Eye and Monkey]

46. "Nothing really changes, does it?" Well, today the masses are literate.

And yet, so many seem to be unaware of the differences between "belief" and "fact".

[Roaming]

35. The idea of ignoring the Old Testament couldn't be farther from

the truth. (Your statement: ' I still think the whole popular concept that we are to IGNORE the Old Testament, because it's inconvenient to recruiting new Christians, and only care about the New one.. is ridiculous.. ')

I agree that is ridiculous. Thankfully I have never heard of a church that does this; at least none I've ever visited does. The Old Testament is critical for understanding God's plan as a whole. Without it, we'd still be half in the dark as to the "why" and "how" of Christ's sacrifice. It reinforces my faith in that it shows the hundreds of prophecies that were written up to thousands of years before Jesus was born, predicting his life and death. (Not to mention hundreds of other prophecies that simply prove that the Bible is not human in origin.)

[ultramega]

28. Never heard this.

Ick. I guess that means that this wasn't the popular, gov't approved Scroll Network "we recite, you decide" version of events, and that there was spin going on even back then, maybe an ancient ancestor of Bill O'Reilly (Baba O'Reilly?) or something.

[Roaming]

34. I've heard this from one of my relatives; however, I have been

unable to find any historical proof of this whatsoever.

[Eye and Monkey]

42. "unable to find any historical proof of this whatsoever."

Perhaps you are referring to the total absence of historical proof that the "Jesus" you describe ever existed.

[Roaming]

43. On the contrary; there is a huge amount of historical evidence.

See Post #41.

[Eye and Monkey]

45. I did. It documents nothing. It's mostly misinformation.

Misinformation surrounded by scholarly language is still misinformation.

[Roaming]

50. That was just a summary; here is a site that might help

http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm

It lays out in GREAT detail the historical evidence. Site is organized by a Christian, but the raw data he pulls from was collected by historians and archeologists, not fundies.

[Eye and Monkey]

51. Perhaps you didn't realize that I read footnotes. Claim is unfounded.

The site you cited - it offers one quote, from one page of one book as the "proof" that there are thousands of "New Testament documents".

If there really are thousands of documents that demonstrate the historical Jesus, perhaps you can do more than regurgitate misinformation from one website.

Understand - I do not question your belief - I take issue with the way you misrepresent your beliefs to be facts.

[Roaming]

58. I have spent many hours researching this and have

read countless sources over many, many years. I still do (right now I'm studying cosmology and how it can or cannot agree with Biblical texts.)

This one web site I found nicely compacts and footnotes much of the data, but it's far from complete. It's impossible to digest that into one discussion thread. But I respectfully invite you to do some research of your own as to the reliability of these manuscripts, and also archeological evidence as to the Bible's truth. I'm an intellectual, and I need food for the brain to believe -- not just a sermon every Sunday, and not just blind faith.

And thankfully, the Bible itself encourages us to "test everything" and hold fast to what is true.

Respectfully,

[Eye and Monkey]

61. Yes, please do "test everything", tho' "faith as fact" fails to pass.

No offense intended, I am sure that there are many sites and sources that repeat the same fabrications concerning the alleged historical documentation of the "New Testament documents". Repetition of fabrications does not suffice for proof.

I applaud your faith in your religion. I applaud your intellectual pursuit of greater understanding.

I urge you to intellectually pursue an idea - that what might be "true" might not be "fact", might not be "provable".

And I urge you to stop repeating fabrications to support your faith.

[Roaming]

62. I'd be very interested to find out why you do not believe these docu-

ments exist--where are you getting this information?

I mean that honestly. I enjoy examining all evidence.

And to your quote, "I urge you to intellectually pursue an idea - that what might be "true" might not be "fact", might not be "provable"."

I say "Amen, friend." See post #60.

And that's it for now; need to get to bed before daylight savings time really kicks my butt tomorrow.

Respectfully,

[Eye and Monkey]

64. try googling +"jesus" +"lack of evidence" - 25,800 documents

I am glad that we agree that what might be "true" might not be "fact". I hope that you can take the next step. Please remember that you responded "amen" to - "might be true" -

[Disturbed]

29. God killed Jesus

God ordered Jesus to die on the cross. Jesus had some doubts about
the order and was severly tempted by Satan not to allow himself to
be persuaded by God to sacrifice himeself. He gave in and set the
scenerio up to be crucified. The Pharasees and Romans were the actors
in the play but God was the director.

The whole concept of Jews killed Jesus is stupidity. The followers of Jesus all were Jews as he was. God directed Jesus to commit suicide and Jesus did so.

Mel Gibson did cast the Jews as the main villans in the play and portrayed Satan as a female lurking in the crowd. The Jews in the film were all portrayed as evil,sinister looking villans. The film is a simplistic drama much like the Westerns of the 50s but with stepped up sado-masochistic scenes. The film would probably not had as much controversy had the torture scenes been brief and not as graphic.

The ADL and others allowed themselves to be suckered into making statements about anti Semitism before the film was even released playing right into Gibson's promo. The entire situation would be silly were it not for people that believe in fairy tales and willing to be sucked in to Gibson's obvious intentions. What were those intentions?

[ultramega]

48. Gee, I almost forgot, Mel hates faggots too.

Satan wasn't female, Satan is portrayed as an androgynous male. The first time I saw the trailer with the androgynous Satan snaking through the crowd, I felt nauseous, because I knew it was a slam on gays. We queeahs just know this stuff.

Gibson has some issues with homosexuality that he is working out in this film, apparently.

Temptation of Christ, no doubt.

I should say that Mel has made homophobic remarks in the past, for those who would say all criticisms of St. Mel are baseless.

And who was it Mel recently said he wanted to disembowel? I swear I read recently that he said he wanted someone's "intestines on a stick".

Mike Douglas has an open letter to Mel in this week's People magazine about his experience as a Jew with seeing "The Passion".

[robbedvoter]

37. Please see the South Park version of this

It basically says the same - but it has the happy ending where right before the pogrom is about to start, a crazed Mel Gibson appears for all to see - and they get embarassed and go home.
I also liked Al Franken's low key comment: "I told Mel Gibson: "let's just say, my father and yours probably wouldn't have gotten along"

# 9 - 007 - You already said it - I havent read the answers before .