Is Gibson a nazi!?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Frankly it's all a bunch of nonsense.

I am no expert in the NT but I recall no event in which Jesus claims to be the son of god. As long as he doesn't do that - Jews shouldn't have a problem with him.

According to Jewish faith no one can tell who is a real profet / messiah besides himself and God, thus their persecution is unwise since you might hurt a messanger of God.

I'm not aware of any cases of jews prosecuting different movements of faith. Even today when the more religious movements despise the reformist movement, it is because of principal issues, and they never call for violence.

If anyone had a beef with Jesus, it were the Romans - since Jesus were starting a political movement. He tried to abolish a major trade center in Jerusalem too. Mainly he caused havoc and unrest where ever he went.

Siro, throughout the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, there are numerous incidents described where Jewish leaders wanted to stone Jesus or the early Christians. Paul himself even admits doing this prior to his conversion.

I think that religious controversies and penalties for heresy were much more vigorous in that time and place.

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by Ned
To a Christian, it would be hard to accept that either the Jews or the Romans are to blame for anything negative because it is doctrine, dogma, belief that Jesus was born and came into existence to die on the cross as he did for the salvation of mankind from original sin. This is why he did not resist when he was arrested and why he essentially admitted that he was the messiah, the son of God, when asked during his trial. Jesus knew his fate and accepted it. It was pre-ordained and part of God's plan. It was noone's "fault."

Beutiful, great arguement.

Siro:

I didn't know that the different passions (i.e. catholic, orthodox, protestant, etc. ) had different interpratations but if I'm not mistaken the events had to unfold the way they did precisely stated by Ned. I will look into these differences, it is an interesting question.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jesus knew his fate and accepted it. It was pre-ordained and part of God's plan.

One quibble.

Jesus chose his fate. He voluntarily submitted to the incarnation, in choosing to become man.

[Bereta_Eder]

isnt it something when at the cliff of the olive trees he says: father can i be spared of this cup?

but then quickly regains himself and says: father thy will be done


the humanity in him

[Standup]

actually i remember some english getting quite upset about "the patriot"

The London based papers got quite upset about it but then they got worked up about U571 (or a similar number) for distorting WW2. It seemed to be more of a rant about Hollywood changing historical fact rather than racial or anti-english feelings.

There was also a similar fuss about Braveheart but then when i saw it in Scotland everyone cheered - hey we smashed the english 700 years ago wow! So long as people are generally able to distinguish between a movie and reality i'm not too worried. My big worry is that for some people the movie industry is the closest they come to historical fact.

As for Mel Gibson he's a very conservative catholic with what i consider some narrow minded views but making a movie based on what may or may not have happened 2,000 years ago doesn't make him a Nazi.

[Sirotnikov]

Siro, forgive me. Are you absolutely sure that the Jews have no criteria in place to determine whether someone is or is not a prophet?

I didn't know that the different passions (i.e. catholic, orthodox, protestant, etc. ) had different interpratations but if I'm not mistaken the events had to unfold the way they did precisely stated by Ned. I will look into these differences, it is an interesting question.

Well if Jesus really claimed to be the son of God, then it probably raised some eyebrows.

I'm sure reality was not ideal, but according to the ideal, you have no way of telling who is possessed by the holy spirit and who isn't.

I think it's Jeremayah that has a dialogue with God about the nature of a true messanger of God. It says basically that it's a very personal feeling and it's hard to say who is and who isn't a true messanger.

One criteria is given:
If the message is a threatening one, then we can not judge the person, because if a bad event follows, he probably truely was a prophet, and if a bad event does not follow, then he very well may have been a prophet that achieved his real goal - scaring some sense into the people of Israel, changing their behaviour, and making punishment obsolete.

If the message is positive, then it has to come true, or else the prophet is a fake one.

Jeremaya himself talks about how no one will ever believe him and they will probably try and stone him (as they actually do, he is saved through connections in the royal history keeper's court).

This is for prophets though. But the whole idea of being related to God is very unique and personal.

Then comes in this - from a program i heard on the radio discussing such matters, i got the perception that later thinkers decided that no voilent measures be taken against people who say they are representing God, because no one really knows, and it's better to ignore a liar than to stone a real prophet.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
I think you are mistaken. Whether or not the action is antisemitic is determined by the intent of the attacker.

Either the attackers direct their attack against Jews qua Jews (which is antisemitic) or they direct it against Jews qua representatives of Israel (which is anti Israeli).

Now because the attacks are against Jews who may or may not support Israel, it appears that they are antisemitic attacks. But Klug notes that Israel does identify itself with the Jewish people and many Jewish people identify themselves with Israel:

If the attackers believe that, then they are directing their attack against Israel because they believe (sometimes erroneously) that particular Jews are part of the Jewish collective (or Israeli collective - it makes no difference) and hence representatives of Israel.

He's right, this is no doubt what the attackers (and many of the victims) believe, so it is simply not the case that the attacks are anti semitic since the intention of the attacker is what determines that fact.

Prejudiced violence against Jews for whatever reason you may wish to think you have, or to invent is anti-semitic. If that isn't, I don't know what in Hades is.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, if anything Christians are taught that they are ingrafted branches in Paul's letter of the Romans, while the Jews are the true branches. Sad how no one reads this portion.

I was going to mention this.

Nobody who has seriously studied scripture can hold anything against the Jews. They are the chosen people of God, and are under His protection.

When "the Jews" is used regarding Jesus -- and as far as I know, this only happens in the Gospel of John -- it is exceedingly clear that it is used in reference to the religious leadership, who knew better, and still acted against God.

[Dr Strangelove]

Why wasn't there a similar protest against Jesus Christ Superstar ? The musical and the movie portrayed the Jewish leadership in an extraordinarily unflattering manner.

OTOH if Mel Gibson's movie truly follows the Gospels almost word for word then we should also see in the movie the masses in Jerusalem as being tolerant or supportive of Jesus' teachings. If the movie is genuinely faithful to the scriptures it should be clear that Jesus was detested by a particular faction of the Jewish leadership, not by the entire Jewish people or even by the entire leadership.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I was going to mention this.

Nobody who has seriously studied scripture can hold anything against the Jews. They are the chosen people of God, and are under His protection.

When "the Jews" is used regarding Jesus -- and as far as I know, this only happens in the Gospel of John -- it is exceedingly clear that it is used in reference to the religious leadership, who knew better, and still acted against God.

Unfortunately for all of us who share the Western heritage, Jews as the killers of Christ has been a time-honoured (?) excuse for persecution of people not yet born at the time of Christ. Persecution might be putting it mildly considering some of the things they have gone through.

I wouldn't want to assume anything about Mr. Gibson, but I am very disappointed that this is even being debated in this day and age.

[Berzerker]

I can't remember the author's name but the book's title is "Paul the Mythmaker" or "The Mythmaker". It's a rabbi's scholarly interpretation of Jesus, Paul, and the early church and this author makes several points showing that Jesus was actually more allied with the Pharisees against the Sadducees but that Paul wanted to spread his own version of Christianity within the Roman empire and couldn't blame the Romans outright so the NT downplays their role in Jesus' death. He delves into the several "confrontations" between Jesus and Pharisees and shows a kinship, not enmity.

LotM -

they monitor groups where they think there may be antisemitism, or hatred being fomented. Across the spectrum. Quite alot of rightwingers dislike them for the same reason, IIUC.

Sorry, but that's a whitewash. The ADL's "subcontractor" was CAN (the cult awareness network) and they were bankrupted by a lawsuit brought and won by the Scientologists for...ahem...defamation. Yes, the ADL defames people! And I vividly remember watching CAN "experts" on TV during the siege at Waco just trashing the hell out of those people. No, the ADL is a despicable bunch of a$$holes.

[The Mad Monk]

As opposed to the Scientologists?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Prejudiced violence against Jews for whatever reason you may wish to think you have, or to invent is anti-semitic. If that isn't, I don't know what in Hades is.

Uh... no.

What if you see a guy wearing a habs sweater and you smash him in the head cause you hate the habs. It turns out he's Jewish - are you an anti-Semite?

No.

Similarly, one could go to war with Israel for reasons that have everything to do with politics and not with race. That doesn't make you an anti-semite either.

[The Mad Monk]

Agathon, notice how nye started his post with the word, "Prejudiced"?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Agathon
Similarly, one could go to war with Israel for reasons that have everything to do with politics and not with race. That doesn't make you an anti-semite either.

It is very possible an attack on Israel is not antisemitic. An attack on a random Jew, simply because because he's a Jew, always is.

Heck, if someone rapes your daughter and happens to be a Jew, not even the most sentsitive Jew will call you an antisemite for gutting him. If you attack a person at random wearing the baseball cap of an enemy team, and that person turns out to be a Jew, that makes you a cretin but not an antisemite.

But if you attack a Jew on the sole basis of his ethnicity or religion, you are being an antisemite. Simple as that.