Do you think "The Passion of the Christ" promotes anti-semitism?

[Mobius]

I don't happen to think the New Testament is anti-semitic. Was it not Jewish Rabbis that "turned in" Jesus at the behest of Judas? The Rabbis as far as I know, saw Jesus as a threat, so had him killed by the Romans. This is in no way a reflection of Jewish people today, merely a historical account by the Bible. What's the big deal about this movie anyway?

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. No. Highly placed sources have indicated that Jesus himself was Jewish

The mob thing is not about Jewish or Hindu, it is about mob behavior and man's inhumanity to man, both of which, not unlike sex, predate Judaism by at least several weeks.

[brainwashed_youth]

3. yes he was

Remember the verse "He came unto his own and his own received him not"?

[brainwashed_youth]

2. No

The Passion does not promote anti-semitism. it promotes the selflessness and grace of Jesus Christ. I cannot wait to see this film.

[KissMyAsscroft]

4. No...

It is a movie, it isn't friggin Mein Kampf..

[SaveElmer]

5. It's not the material - it's how it is used

The Passion play has been used throughout the centuries to whip up anti-semitism. It is often the vehicle racists use to justify their persecution of the Jews. By calling them "Christ killers" they have a rallying cry they can use to convince the masses Jews are their enemies. That is the problem wit this. As far as I can see, and from what I read, the movie is pretty faithful to the bible.

[brainwashed_youth]

9. that's an unfortunate by product

The passion, imo, were not made to incite anti-semitism. But, that's once of the many things that came out of it. I myself have seen a Passion play and did not feel any hostility to the Jews afterwards.

[elfwitch]

42. passion plays...

One of the biggest historical Passion Play events has always been on Ash Wednesday. Throughout history, after seeing the Ash Wednesday passion plays, Christians were incited to commit acts of violence or enact pogroms against the local Jewish population.

This movie is coming out on Ash Wednesday. Calculated action? Who knows? Historically speaking, just releasing the film on this day is tacky at best.

[Mobius]

10. The Bible is the "material" in question here.

Not Mel Gibson's movie. I just wish people would keep that straight.

[Sandpiper]

24. You're right

And there's plenty of "material" in the Bible that deserves serious questioning.

[Ladyhawk]

48. Most definitely!

Much of the bible is disgusting. I've read and studied the whole thing and there really isn't much to recommend it. Jesus says a few good things, but overall, it's a disgusting dunghill.

"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.


"And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

2 Kings 2:23-24

Nice guy, that biblegod. He was also heavily into genocide and sentencing people to eternal hellfire if they didn't believe in something.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452/">Mel Gibson says his wife could be going to hell

[hellsbells]

27. clash of cultural concepts

Speaking as a total atheist who is interested in the notion of religion as a form of social cohesion, I'm starting to see the conceptual clash between the old testament judaism and the new testament christianity and also qu'ranic islam.

Early human cultures have a strongly xenophobic streak, e.g. ancient greeks called non-greeks 'barbarians' and ancient jews called non-jews 'gentiles'. Religion reinforced the social group. One was born into the religion and the social group.

Then along came the Romans with a somewhat different policy. One could be conquored and join the Roman Empire as citizens. Christianity likewise said one could join their religion as converts. That's why a large part of Christianity calls itself 'catholic' meaning 'universal'. Similarly, islam is a religion that accepts converts and is in the same sense 'universal'.

So there is a clash of cultures: those who don't welcome converts, and those that do. Judaism prefers bloodline, christianity and islam does not.

The vivid image of the crucifixion of jesus represents this clash of cultural philosophies. One philosophy hated outsiders, so tried to protect itself by killing the heretic who felt brotherhood with outsiders. The story would not have been possible or remembered had it not been for the presence of the Romans.

Somehow, there could be some very interesting computer modelling done on the social competition between one group that is exclusive (e.g. jews) co-existing with another group that is inclusive (e.g. christians, moslems). What are the survival strategies of each group? Can one group exploit the other group more than they are exploited?

Gibson's movie is interesting in that he is once more pointing out that religion is a social force, and giving back to christians their iconic imagery. Interesing that the jewish ideologues are bewailing this renewal of christian identification!! Were they working hard to try and wipe it out? Are they anti-christian?

[Nihil]

35. Nice post!

Disagree with the following though:

> Somehow, there could be some very interesting computer modelling
> done on the social competition between one group that is exclusive
> (e.g. jews) co-existing with another group that is inclusive (e.g.
> christians, moslems). What are the survival strategies of each
> group? Can one group exploit the other group more than they are
> exploited?

Too complex. Given that you are not talking about mass dynamics
(except in the punning sense :-)) you cannot model either group as
a whole - each is made up of discrete (often competing) elements
that do not adhere to simplistic strategies.

Think about the variety of priests, rabbis and imams that you know.
Then consider the response from the faithful of each group to each
"leader", the interactions between "leaders" of the same faith, the
interactions between individuals of each faith, the wide variation
in interpretation of the faith by individuals ...

Still, welcome to DU! :hi:

Nihil

[hellsbells]

37. Thanks nihil

Yeah, I know what you mean, it's the old debate in evolutionary thought about group selection vs. individual selection. Group selection was trounced in the sense that finally it's individuals that do the actual surviving/not surviving. But clearly groups persist as recognisable entities, i.e. perpetuate themselves over many - hundreds - of generations. I'm still formulating ideas.

Religion as an identifier of social group has interesting properties. Gibson's movie is generating such a storm it has clearly transgressed someone else's powerful agenda. There is a clash of cultures here. Could be a good research project if handled the right way.

Start another thread on the topic?

[camero]

6. I don't think so

I think it's anti-leadership. It seems like every criticism of Jewish leadership is somehow anti-semitic. There is no leadership that is above criticism. Or ethnicity.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

7. History, my friend

In Europe, history is filled with anti-semetic acts (I'm going to leave out the obviousness of the Holocaust here). A modern parallel is found in Russia prior to the revolution in 1917. That's the reason alot of Jews from the Ukraine came to the US. Most of these acts were based on a belief that Jews were "Christ killers". These persecutions were caused by viewing the mystery plays of the middle ages put on by Catholics to churches advocating bigotry against Jews. People have a history of not being rational when it comes to religious beliefs. I understand their concern and sympathise with them, however I have not seen the movie so I can't make a personal judgement.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hellsbells]

32. me? rethug hell Nazi/Freeper?

You don't know me, so why are you slandering me? I am not a nazi, thug or freeper. I am an analytical thinker. I am not a knee-jerk brainwashed moron.

I have a profound interest in humanity. People are the most beautiful creatures but are often confused by false beliefs.

I wish that people would stop using stupid labels to avoid discussing very important issues. The question of emotional blackmail by one group against another is an extremely important matter.

I hope that you are not in the business yourself of emotional blackmail. Please examine your reactions and do not project them on to others.

[Mobius]

33. u r off topic

spare me the intimidation tactic. This thread is not about whether or not your warped misconceptions about the Holocaust being true or not. This thread is specifically about whether or not Gibson's film promotes anti-semitism. If you want to discuss your archaic theories, do it in your own thread. No one is stopping you.

[unblock]

30. MODERATORS: PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE ABOVE POST!

though it is disgusting and inflamatory and the poster deserves the boot but quick, in this particular case, we are talking about anti-semitism:

i think the fact that a discussion about 'passion' being anti-semitic attracted an insanely anti-semitic post is itself highly illustrative.

even if mel gibson had the purest of thoughts, and even if the material is 'objectively' non-anti-semitic (though i disagree with both premises), then it is still the case that 'passion' is anti-semitic simply because the material does give fodder and encouragement for the anti-semitic....

[Mobius]

31. my post? or the nazi freak?

:shrug:

[MrScorpio]

8. Without Christ's death noone would be guaranteed eternal salvation

Right?

Anti-semites just don't get it.

[mitchum]

11. "If the Jews, among whom Christ was born, crucified him,...

they knew him best" Christopher Marlowe

[unblock]

12. it's the emphasis on "jewish rabbis turning jesus in"

here's the bottom line on jesus's death:

the ROMANS killed a JEW.

jesus may have been a 'threat' to rabbis, but he was more of a threat to the romans, who are the ones who actually killed him. but this story is part of the reason we tend to forget this.

yes, the rabbis were of course jewish, as was jesus and all his disciples. the last supper was a passover seder. jesus lived and died a jew.

yet, instead of emphasizing the fact that this is yet another story of jewish persecution at the hands of a powerful empire, the telling of the passion story tends to emphasize the jesus was betrayed by jews, leading to his death.

thus the story of a jew being killed is turned into a story of jews killing.


notice that there is absolutely no discussion of whether or not this story or movie promotes anti-roman or anti-italian attitudes. of course not. the story doesn't aim to criticize italians and this is not emphasized.

the story DOES aim to criticize jews. when early christianity was seeking its own identity, paul needed to separate his people from the jews. so there is a fair amount of anti-judaism in early christianity simply as an effort to distinguish themselves from judaism, from which christianity sprang.

alas, centuries after the christian identity was well established, the then-obsolete need to distinguish themselves from judaism became a misplaced rationale for hatred and persecution.

this movie is part of that.

[DenverDem]

14. Jesus' message was anti-judgementalism not anti-Semitic.

His ministry was based on the concepts of radical agape love, forgiveness and grace. The Jews of the day were obsessed with legalistic judgementalism, identical to the fundamentalists of the 21st century. The Beatitudes trump the Ten Commandments, but today's evangelicals have fallen into the same hubristic trap that Jesus transcended. The religious right (wrong) are the scribes and Pharisees of our society and regularly nail prophets with a liberation theology like Jesus' to contemporary trees. This is why the Romans co-opted Christ's message in the fourth century and rewrote the Bible at the Council of Nicea to be an enslaving theology rather than the spiritual liberation it originated as. This fit Cesar's needs and neutralized the exploding Christian community. And so the Church has been a tool of the power elite to keep the rabble pacified ever since. This cinematic retelling of the Jesus story old school Roman style is just another nail in the cross.

[Dr Fate]

17. You saw it?

???

[elfwitch]

43. there were no actual rabbis then....

If anything, Yeshewah bar Joseph was a proto-rabbi. He wasn't saying anything that other "rabbis" at the time weren't also saying. What got Yeshewah in trouble was he was pissing off the Romans.

The priests of the temple who were "in charge" at the time were also suspect by the new rabbinical class. They were corrupt. Hence, there are no more temple priests and there are lots of rabbis.

[PVnRT]

13. Not having seen it

and not going to see it, I have no real idea...

The death of Jesus was and is often used as a pretext for hating Jews, but it goes deeper than that. No one who has power likes a rabble-rouser coming along telling people that they're corrupt.

It was also a repressive, corrupt, imperial government in control at the time. They executed people for any reason, including none at all.

[regnaD kciN]

15. Forget the movie, read...

...Christopher Moore's Lamb: the Gospel according to Biff, Christ's childhood pal instead.

By the way, I'm not joking! It's a wonderful book.

[Dr Fate]

16. I have not seen it. But I did read the New Testament...

...and I never got a "pro-Roman, anti-Jewish" vibe from it.

I have not seen the movie.

[Leilani]

18. I believe in artistic freedom

And I really resent people censoring artists. A lot of people screaming about this film have not seen it.

[Sandpiper]

19. In reading the writings of the New Testament

One must understand that they're not objective historical texts, but rather, polemics written by the promoters of a new religion whose chief rivals were the Jews and whose masters were the Romans.

The gospel of Matthew is generally considered to be the one targeted to a Jewish audience. Consequently, its author goes to great pains to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah, and lays blame for the death of Jesus at the feet of "corrupt" Jewish leaders who failed to recognize their "king." It is also the only one of the four gospels to contain the blood libel, i.e., the mob shouts "his blood be upon us and our children." Throughout history, the blood libel has been used to excuse all manner of attrocities against the "Christ killers" which reached their awful crescendo during the Holocaust.

The gospel authors also went to great pains to make sure they didn't upset their Roman rulers, and utterly absolved them of any moral culpability. Pontius Pilate is made out to be the good guy who did everything he could to spare Jesus's life, whereas, contemporary historians portray Pilate as being vicious, brutal, and likely to execute a trouble maker without a second thought.

So, the question is, did the writers of the New Testament have a vested interest in portraying the Jewish authorities in a negative light? The answer: absolutely.

[Mobius]

20. It was 2000 years ago.

If sick rascist groups want to warp it into a way to promote anti-semitism, that is not Mel Gibson's fault.

[Sandpiper]

22. What exactly defines a "sick racist" group?

The Catholic Church actively promoted anti semitism for about 16 centuries. Does that make them the world's largest "sick racist" group?

[Mobius]

25. well yeah, in some ways.

but not ALL Christains are Catholics. Im nt even Christian myself, in case you were wondering about my motivation for this post.

[Sandpiper]

26. True, not all Christians are Catholics

But Mel Gibson most definitely is. Heck, he even thinks that one of the problems with the Catholic church today is that it isn't conservative enough. He doesn't accept any of the reforms of Vatican II, one of which was the repudiation of the idea that the blood of Jesus was upon the Jewish people.

[DenverDem]

21. The "writers" of the gospel were Roman, ultimately.

When the Bible was put together at the behest of Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea, the words of the original gospel writers were edited to be acceptable to Rome by the Roman bureaucrats that ran the Council.

[molly]

34. Locked away somewhere lies the truth

part of it will be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[GreyV]

23. No.

...

[onebigbadwulf]

36. Isn't every religion that forces its belief onto others

automatically anti every other religion?

[Mobius]

38. who is forcing their religion on anybody?

Its a MOVIE, don't see it if you dont want to.

[Kamika]

39. I don't see how it's anti semitic to just tell the truth.

I mean just because some rabbis at the time disliked Jesus (who was a jew himself), and that some ppl at the time chose another convict instead of Jesus to be set free, doesn't mean that jews today are in any way responsible or so, I mean geez that would mean that all christians today are responsible for stuff christians did back in the day, all germans today are responsible or Germans back in the 40s etc etc etc


Both Jews and Christians need to chill, Jews shouldn't make a big fuss about this, anyone who isn't already an anti semite won't become one by just watching the movie.. and if anyone is so stupid as to think that all jews are responsible for this etc and becomes an anti semite by watching the movie, it's not the movies fault it's something else that's lacking.

badda bing badda bom

[meti57b]

40. the New Testament puts it own spin on historical events.

The Christians started out as a Jewish sect but in order to grow they needed converts. Few wanted to convert to Judaism, considering the requirements of Halacha, so the Christians differentiated themselves from traditional Jewish thinking in as many ways as possible, which included an attempt to discredit it. As a result, in many ways, the NT is anti-Semitic.

[silverlib]

41. Deep question

What were MG's motives for producing this play?

I think they were anti-semitic. I have heard, tho I can't produce a link, that he is one of a group of Christians trying to bring about the "rapture" and this play is his attempt to help this along. He stumbles every time someone asks him whether the Holocaust actually happened. His father believes that it didn't.

I believe in free artistic reign. I will not see this play because I do not support the "possible" motives. I think the motives are more the "passion of MG' than the "passion of Christ."

[Kat45]

47. I disagree with your interpretation.

I've never heard that about the "rapture," and as one who grew up Catholic, I can honestly say I've never heard any Catholics mention the rapture. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's a Catholic belief. I never heard of it until modern-day fundies took over. It's the fundies, who are Protestants, who want to see that rapture soon.

In his interview last night, Gibson said he does believe that large numbers of Jews were killed, i.e. the Holocaust actually happened. Just because his father believes it didn't happen, that doesn't mean he holds the same belief. Gibson said he is not anti-semitic, and a Jewish man (from the anti-defamation league, I think) said he didn't believe that he was anti-semitic, nor did he think the movie was. His concern was about some people taking it that way.

I believe he said his reason for making this movie went back to a time a number of years ago when he was seriously depressed, to the point of contemplating suicide, and he turned to God for help. He started praying and meditating on his problems, reading the Bible, etc. I'm not sure exactly how that resulted in his making the movie, but there's some connection there.

[elcondor]

44. I seem to be of a minority opinion here

but I hope y'all will hear me out. I was raised a Catholic, but broke fairly early with the Church and have since converted to Reform Judaism (but by no means do I claim to speak for all former-Catholics/Catholics and/or Jews).

I remember going to the Good Friday services as a kid and having to recite this pseudo-play (based on the New Testament) of the events leading up to Jesus' execution. The congregation played the part of the "crowd" (when Pilate gives the choice of which of the two prisoners to release) and we had to chant, "crucify him, crucify him," when Pilate asked whether or not Jesus should be released. According to this particular interpretation, Pilate hemmed and hawed about sending Jesus to his death, as he saw G-d's presence in him. There were also implications earlier in the story that Pilate was somehow at the command of the Sanhedrin--or at the very least took their word on who to arrest. Someone who knows nothing about that period in history would assume that the Roman command in Jerusalem was somehow under the control of Jewish leadership--so, logically, in his or her view, if the Romans' killed Jesus, it was only because the Jewish people at the time told him to.

This, of course, is simply historically inaccurate. The Jewish people were under the rule of the Romans--that includes the Jewish leadership at the time. I imagine that if the Sanhedrin had told Pilate to arrest someone, he would have laughed in their faces.

Now I don't think that the Christian Bible is inherently anti-Jewish. But I do believe that the writers' of the individual gospels took certain liberties when it came to the truth. Few would disagree that Jesus' message and teachings were anything but full of love and hope--but he didn't want to start a new religion. As others have stated, he was a Jewish person until the day he died. His followers were the ones who started Christianity. Some passages of the individual gospels are blatantly anti-Jewish and over time those passages have been interpreted different ways by different Christian sects. For centuries the Catholic Church spread the false prejudices of blood libel and "Christ-killers" against the Jewish people--thousands died because of these accusations. It took a while, but the Vatican eventually saw the error of its ways and asked Catholics everywhere to lay down their prejudices against Jewish people. This decision, amongst others, was called the Vatican II.

Mel Gibson's branch of Catholicism rejects the Vatican II--which by extension means he rejects the falsity that is the accusation of "Christ-killer." Therefore, I can make certain assumptions about his film without having seen it. Mr. Gibson is allowed to believe whatever he wants to believe, and make any movie he wants to about those beliefs. But I think he is being irresponsible as an artist when he claims that "this is how it was." He has to know that, as a celebrity, people will take his word for things. On the whole, I don't think that the American population will say, "okay Mel, if you say so!" upon viewing this movie--but he has to know that there ARE people like that out there (and/or still harbor anti-Jewish prejudices) and that how those people react to his interpretation have very real consequences.

My life has changed in many ways since I became Jewish--overwhelmingly, these changes have been positive, but I have also experienced some of the prejudices that are still alive today. I don't wake up everyday afraid to go outside because I think someone will harm me because of my religion, but it's in the Jewish collective conscious that it COULD happen, that it HAS happened before. If Mr. Gibson's critics turn out to be right, that this film does portray Jews as the villains of the New Testament, it can only do more harm. It's revisionist history at its very worst and will only serve to encourage and fuel anti-Jewish sentiment. You may not agree, but I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as Mr. Gibson is.

(Note: I am relying on memory when it comes to the story of Jesus' execution, please correct me if I got any details incorrect.)

[elfwitch]

45. another convert

My life has changed in many ways since I became Jewish--overwhelmingly, these changes have been positive, but I have also experienced some of the prejudices that are still alive today. I don't wake up everyday afraid to go outside because I think someone will harm me because of my religion, but it's in the Jewish collective conscious that it COULD happen, that it HAS happened before. If Mr. Gibson's critics turn out to be right, that this film does portray Jews as the villains of the New Testament, it can only do more harm. It's revisionist history at its very worst and will only serve to encourage and fuel anti-Jewish sentiment. You may not agree, but I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as Mr. Gibson is.

I understand the life change as well. During the conversion process they make sure that you understand that people will hate you for choosing Judaism. They make sure you understand that you are subject to the historical hatred of the Jews and that you might suffer violence or worse by becoming Jewish. Fear, hatred, and violence against Jews is still alive and well. For those born Jewish and for those of us who chose it, any spark in anti-Semitism is worrisome.

[Mobius]

46. just kicking this cuz im seeing alot of "Passion" dupes

:kick:

[Fight_n_back]

49. not rabbis

but priests.

According to the story, the guy said he was g_d which is a sin punishible by death.

The priests took the bible literally so they had no choice to call for the guy's death.

ironic considering the beliefs of fundy XTians..

Why this makes anyone living today culpible in a legal execution is bizarre.

[Nile]

50. Do not know, it is not showing in the theater yet.

Can not comment on it if I have not seen it. Where is everyone else seeing it?