Israeli Lwmaker Wants Mel Gibson On Trial !

Reverend Jim said:

In Israel, an ultra-conservative politician said the movie should be banned in his country and called for Gibson to be put on trial.

"The movie repeats a blood libel from the dawn of history," said Eli Yishai of the Shas Party.

Click to expand...

2,000 years later - yet some still things haven't changed.....

Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him (Matthew 26:3, 4).

Jesus prepared us for persecution in His name though...

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you (Matthew 5:10-12).

Holding a trial in Isreal for Mel over a movie is just plain stupid. It's not just silly - it's crossed over into stupidity.

[nooff]

Clarification: it isn't a lawmaker, it's a politician. It appears he is not in office.

This seems about as worrisome as Lyndon LaRouche's endless insanity. I mean, really--who cares if some nutball fringe Israeli spouts off?

What crime did Gibson committ that this guy wants to put him on trial? I agree it has crossed over the line of stupidity.

.:Mod hat on:.

Note to trolls:

Any further anti-Semitic posts in this thread will get their posters officially warned.

:rules:

[noflame]
[notroll]
[nooff]

Thank you.

Mylinkay Asdara said:

Holding a trial in Isreal for Mel over a movie is just plain stupid. It's not just silly - it's crossed over into stupidity.

Click to expand...

How about "not true"? The New York Post was exaggerating. The man in question is considered a nut case in his own country-makes Sharon look like the tooth fairy- and all they report that he wanted the film banned in Israel and everywhere else.

OK, I apologize for what i said earlier, it was said it haste.

""[To have the film] repeat those four words(the jews killed Christ) in such dramatic manner troubles us.""

The thing is the film did not say that, at least audibly. And they even got Mel to remve the Caiphas's line "may his blood be on us and our children".

You see I don't think the people accusing the film of anti-semitism have a problem with Gibson or this film specifiaclly. I think they have a problem with the Gospel. I think they regard the Gospel as anti-semitic.

Gibson made the movie based on the Gospel, it was not his own work in a way, as he was putting the already existant Gospel on screen. If you think Gibson's film is an accurate/good portrayal of the Gospel, doesn't it follow that if someone has a problem with it it's probably because they have the same problem with the Gospel? for example, if you thought it was too bloody.

I don't see a way a movie based on the Gospel will not get charged with anti-semitism short of changing it so that the crowd begs for jesus to be released and pilate kills him anyway.

Any thoughts on this? Why would they regard an accurate portrayal of something as anti-semitic if they didn't regard what's being portrayed as anti-semitic.

(in case you're wondering this on topic as the "trial" line is a tiny part of the article, or is the "trial" the topic? plus it's why the guy wants to indict Mel.)

America’s Real War: An Interview with Rabbi Daniel Lapin

CBN.com – Rabbi Daniel Lapin is a well-known speaker and radio talk show host, president of Toward Tradition, an organization dedicated to building bridges between American Jews and Christians, and the author of a book called "America's Real War," which touts the importance of our shared Christian-Judeo values. Pat Robertson talked with Rabbi Lapin about the intense reaction to Mel Gibson’s newest film "The Passion of The Christ," anti-Semitism in America and Europe, and much more.

PAT ROBERTSON: "The Passion of The Christ" opens in theaters across the country today. It’s probably the most talked about movie in my lifetime. And some have warned that it could stir up anti-Semitic violence. Our next guest says it’s the cure for that kind of hostility, Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Rabbi Lapin, it always a pleasure to welcome you back to The 700 Club. Glad to see you.

RABBI LAPIN: The 700 Club is one of my big all-time favorites.

ROBERTSON: Thank you. Listen, Abe Foxman has gone over the edge. He’s supposed to be tripping off to the Vatican to get a protest against this movie. He said things that were very extreme. What is the deal on these guys?

RABBI LAPIN: First of all, I think you and I should own the franchise to sell him the wash clothes with which to wash the egg off his face over the next few weeks. The evidence that you are absolutely right is that he started this nearly a year ago, labeling Mel Gibson an anti-Semite, labeling the movie anti-Semitic, labeling the camera men and the sound engineers and anybody who was even remotely connected with the movie anti-Semitic, and flinging that epithet around in a reckless and dangerous kind of way. By the time he was on television last week, he was sort of withdrawing that, and I think he's realizing, as he’s losing more and more support within the Jewish community, that he went way over the line and was completely incorrect on all of this.

ROBERTSON: What is the story here? This movie is anything but anti-Semitic. It is the four Gospels that Christians believe is inspired scripture. There is nothing that is departing from this narrative.

LAPIN: It is breathtakingly arrogant. What he is saying is that the only way to escape the wrath of Foxman is to repudiate your faith, and this in a land that has been the most tranquil and prosperous and safe haven for Jews for 2,000 years, precisely because of its Christian origin and because of the Christian nature of America. Jews ought to be embracing and encouraging this movie, and most are. But again, it is a few old-fashioned organizations that can't kiss the past goodbye.

ROBERTSON: There was a movie called "The Last Temptation of Christ" that was absolutely blasphemous, and showed Christ fantasizing on the cross about having sex with Mary Magdalene. It’s as horrifying to a Christian as anything we could conceive of. And I wrote him and said, you’re the Anti-Defamation League, why don't you protest this? All he did was send my letter to the New York Times, and made fun of me. I don’t understand it.

LAPIN: I wrote strongly about this. "The Last Temptation of Christ" was one, and another one was "A Priest," produced by Miramax. In neither of these cases did any of these organizations protest; instead of which, they argued freedom of artistic expression. And so it leads one to obviously believe that in the eyes of these dangerous organizations, organizations that are driving a wedge between American Jews and Christians, the only people who are not entitled to artistic free expression are people like Mel Gibson, or anybody else who depicts Christianity in a positive way.

ROBERTSON: You have seen a tremendous rapprochement [uniting] between the orthodox Jewish community and evangelical Christians. I think evangelical Christians are the strongest supporters of Israel and the Jewish cause as any group in the world.

LAPIN: No question about it. As you and I have spoken for many, many years on this subject already, I always say that America's Bible belt is Judaism's safety belt. The reason that America has been a haven for Jews, and frankly, when compared with Europe, the reason that America is so free of anti-Semitism -- and yes, it is virtually free of institutionalized anti-Semitism -- is precisely because Christianity is strong and fervent in America. Whereas Europe is in its post-Christianity era. And as Christianity fades away in Europe, it gets replaced with a kind of sinister secularism that finds its expression in virulent anti-Semitism. What protects us in America is Christianity. The majority of the Jews out there who have warm and affectionate and friendly relationships with their Christian neighbors and business associates and friends, are mortified by what several organizations, including the one you alluded to, has made of this film.

ROBERTSON: You said, by the way, that you feel this film may be the harbinger of America's third great religious reawakening, why?

LAPIN: I believe that. I believe that America has enjoyed the care and concern of providence for over 200 years. I don't doubt that one moment. It seems to me that our first great awakening came just in time to win us independence from the British, during the colonial period. A war which you’ll remember, I don’t have to tell you, was really fueled by the pulpits of colonial churches. The second great awakening, as I see it, was the great resurgence in Christianity that essentially ended slavery. It seems to me that this great awakening, and I sense it now just because of the relationships I have with so many Christian friends, and the opportunities I have to speak in so many churches. I see so many new organizations growing. This one seems to be rising perhaps just in time to defeat homosexual marriage, which, of course, I know you are right in the forefront of.

ROBERTSON: One last thing. America's real war. We have had a lot of talk about the red states that went for Bush and the blue states that went for Gore. Isn't there is a serious division in America that you see, and if so, what do you think is causing that division?

LAPIN: I don't think there’s any doubt that there is a massive canyon that cuts across American culture. It is not between blacks and whites, or rich and poor, or men and women; and it’s not between the Jews and Christians. But it is between those people who feel that Judeo-Christian values, biblical civilization, is vital for our nation's survival, and on the other hand, those people who feel these values and biblical ideas do nothing but obstruct progress to some kind of secular socialist utopia. And there are Jews and Christians on both sides, I’m afraid, and blacks and whites on both sides, and rich and poor on both sides, and this, at the heart, is really what is going to define this coming November.

ROBERTSON: Rabbi Lapin, it is always a pleasure to have you with us, your insights are tremendous. Thank you so much. Ladies and gentlemen, this book—it’s been out for a while – is tremendous. It is called You are in it. You can order it directly off the web. And we’d be glad to have you have a copy of it. But this is the divide. What we are having is a clash of cultures taking place in our nation, and you are in the midst of that struggle.

Blackguard_ said:

You see I don't think the people accusing the film of anti-semitism have a problem with Gibson or this film specifiaclly. I think they have a problem with the Gospel. I think they regard the Gospel as anti-semitic.

Gibson made the movie based on the Gospel, it was not his own work in a way, as he was putting the already existant Gospel on screen. If you think Gibson's film is an accurate/good portrayal of the Gospel, doesn't it follow that if someone has a problem with it it's probably because they have the same problem with the Gospel? for example, if you thought it was too bloody.

I don't see a way a movie based on the Gospel will not get charged with anti-semitism short of changing it so that the crowd begs for jesus to be released and pilate kills him anyway.

Any thoughts on this? Why would they regard an accurate portrayal of something as anti-semitic if they didn't regard what's being portrayed as anti-semitic.

(in case you're wondering this on topic as the "trial" line is a tiny part of the article, or is the "trial" the topic? plus it's why the guy wants to indict Mel.)

Click to expand...

There is evidently a disconnect. It seems that there are a lot of people who just don't understand that there are certain aspects of the Gospels that have caused the Jews a lot of persecution, by Christians, chiefly in Europe, for the past 2000 years. Anti-semitic ideas espoused in the Gospels spread and expanded almost immediately by the Early Church Fathers, especially St. John Chrysostom of Antioch who referred to the Jews as the assasins of Christ. After enduring this for so long and having the worst kinds of abuses foisted on them; pogrom after pogrom, culminating in the Shoah, it should not be hard to understand their sensitivity.

It would helpful to remember that the Jews that persecuted Jesus were the Pharisees; shills for the Romans, not everyday Jews. It should also be remembered that the crowd that had assembled was probably salted with the Zealots supporting Barabbas. There could have also been a great deal of confusion as the oldest MSS of the Gospel of Matthew teaches us, Barabbas' name was also Jesus, so in essence the choice may have been presented to the crowd by Pilate as Jesus, the King of the Jews, or Jesus, the Son of the Father.

Anyway, there's a lot of ways to portray the Passion and still maintain some semblance of sensitivity.

It is hard when the answer to all of these questions seems to be "Yes and No."
* Did the Jews kill Christ? Well, yes and no. Yes: Some powerful Jews and some of the Jewish rabble pushed for the prosecution of what they saw to be a blasphemer and a political provocateur. No: Not all Jews opposed Christ, most of his early followers were Jews.
* Have Passion Plays contributed to anti-semitism in either word or deed? Well, yes and no. Yes: Many people who are unable to see nuances or are unable to see how many Jews followed Christ may be goaded by such performnces into manifesting hatred toward the Jews as a people. No: Only people who have hate in their hearts to start will manifest hate after seeing such a performance.
* Are Jews over-sensitive about anti-Semitism? Yes: we Jews often over-react and seem to cry "Anti-Semitism!" whenever someone looks at us cross-eyed. No: Jews have been the victims of anti-Jewish violence for millennia. Very often anti-Jewish rhetoric has turned into anti-Jewish violence.
* Does the earthly Church display anti-Semitic sentiments? Yes: St. John Chrysostom and Martin Luther are example of prominent, flawed, human Christians who have made some reprehensible statements about Jews. No: The Body of Christ is greater than any of its individual earthly representatives, and we cannot hold Christ guilty for uninspired, flawed statements made by any of his followers.

As a Jewish Believer in Christ, I often feel myself torn. As a Jew, I am always aware of the tragedy that is Jewish history, and I feel protective of my brothers and sisters after the flesh. And as a Christian, I also realize that the Gospel is the liberating force that can free us all from destruction. And that Jewish over-sensitivity and over-reaction can often cause anti-semitic sentiment where there may have been none previously.
I pray that Jews everywhere have their eyes and hearts opened to the friends that they have in Christians, and to the saving message of Christ. And I pray that Christians everywhere will continue to have great patience and better understand the fact that trauma has scarred Jews in ways that can be difficult for a people to overcome.

Anyone who would portray the 700 club as their all time favorite show.... well, lack of credibility is the only the tip of the iceberg.

Personally, I think all the people who are bashing the film and claiming anti-semetism are themselves anti-christian. Seems like a double standard if you ask me. In any case, the film is an enourmous success, and all the attempts by the liberals and left to derail it have failed.

lol. Talk about insanity. It takes all kinds to make this world go round, doesn't it. I have no doubt that he doesn't speak for the Jewish people as a whole, or even a decent percentage of them.

The movie was very tasteful towards the Jewish people, and I think you'd find that most would be aware of this at this point. If the movie were libellous, I would think that would be a whole different story.

Arturis said:

Personally, I think all the people who are bashing the film and claiming anti-semetism are themselves anti-christian. Seems like a double standard if you ask me. In any case, the film is an enourmous success, and all the attempts by the liberals and left to derail it have failed.

Click to expand...

i dont think that anyone bashing the film is anti Christian. they are just overly concerned with anti semitism. i believe Gibson is trying to tell it as he sees it.