Zayit said:That is beautiful heartman, your father was truly blessed.
that was extremely good!
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Messianics take stand on "Passion" Movie
- Thread starter Sephania
- Start date
that was extremely good!
Henaynei
Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai Echud! Al pi Adonai...
- Sep 6, 2003
- 21,343
- 1,805
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Constitution
The discussion should get *very* interesitng after several of those posting have actually seen the movie --- I am looking forward to a warm, informed and civilized exchange....
Upvote
0
G-d gave me a Wesley, a Michael, and a Daniel.....no Brians here??
;;;;blows a raspberry:::::
Upvote
0
ShirChadash
A Jew, by the grace and love of God. Come home!
LOL!Pray4Isrel said:LOL!!!
In the intensity of the moment I misspelled brain!
I don't have a brian either... do have a Sean though.
Brian. Brain. Sometimes I think I have NEITHER!
Upvote
0
- Jun 24, 2003
- 3,698
- 271
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Does anybody else find it very funny that this guy is complaining about a "less than pure" actress (Belucci) portraying Mary Magdalene - a former prostitute?Higher Truth said:
(And of course she's not a "porn star" just for appearing nude in Italian (non-porn)magazines.)
Not that the rest of his diatribe is particularly insightful either!
Upvote
0
Where does it say in the Bible that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute? I have a KJV and I don't remember reading that but where is it? Oh and yesterday, I heard that the one that portrayed Jesus accidently got a gash from the hit (I guess somebody forgot to fake the scourge one time).
Upvote
0
Actually I think I read somewhere that the Catholic Church was the one that portrays her as a prostitute, but that is not what the Bible says, IN the gospel of Mark it it written that the Lord appeared first to "Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils."
In the gospel of Luke it says that he was going from village to village preaching and showing the good news of the kingdom of God with the twelve with him and certain woman, which had been healed of evil spirits adn infirmities, Mary, called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils.....................Chapter 8
And as far as this actress not being a porn Star, if posing nude is not pornography then what is?
The false prophets were strong, not only in their own numbers, but in their popularity with the people. This told heavily against the true prophets; for the people could not believe that the one man, who was standing alone, was right, and that his opponents, who were many, were wrong."
http://watch-unto-prayer.org/default.html
I think that you should at least consider taking this seriouly and pray for those that it may happen to and possible victims.
In the gospel of Luke it says that he was going from village to village preaching and showing the good news of the kingdom of God with the twelve with him and certain woman, which had been healed of evil spirits adn infirmities, Mary, called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils.....................Chapter 8
And as far as this actress not being a porn Star, if posing nude is not pornography then what is?
The false prophets were strong, not only in their own numbers, but in their popularity with the people. This told heavily against the true prophets; for the people could not believe that the one man, who was standing alone, was right, and that his opponents, who were many, were wrong."
http://watch-unto-prayer.org/default.html
I think that you should at least consider taking this seriouly and pray for those that it may happen to and possible victims.
Upvote
0
- Jun 24, 2003
- 3,698
- 271
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Zayit said:
Then I must be a pornographer for taking those life drawing classes...
Upvote
0
UNION OF MESSIANIC JEWISH CONGREGATIONS
We also share the concerns of Jewish leaders that this story can be distorted into an indictment against the Jewish people. In particular, we encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to go beyond defending the Biblical accuracy of The Passion to recognize the historic perspective of the Jewish community. Christians who love Yeshua must do all they can to counter any anti-Semitic distortion of his story. [/font][/size][/b]
Jamie Cowen
President
Russell Resnik
Executive Director
Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations[/QUOTE]
I heard Russ Resnik, President of the UMJC, speak this Shabbat morning about this topic. He was a bit more forcefully "for" the movie in person...but as he points out....he hasn't seen the movie so it is hard to really make much of a comment.
There is a meeting of the leaders of the UMJC this Tuesday and Wednesday to grapple with some very deep subjects regarding the present course and future growth of the Union.
I will be praying for them to reach wise decisions and take bold action on Tuesday and Wednesday...maybe I'll fast, too.
Anyone care to join?
We also share the concerns of Jewish leaders that this story can be distorted into an indictment against the Jewish people. In particular, we encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to go beyond defending the Biblical accuracy of The Passion to recognize the historic perspective of the Jewish community. Christians who love Yeshua must do all they can to counter any anti-Semitic distortion of his story. [/font][/size][/b]
Jamie Cowen
President
Russell Resnik
Executive Director
Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations[/QUOTE]
I heard Russ Resnik, President of the UMJC, speak this Shabbat morning about this topic. He was a bit more forcefully "for" the movie in person...but as he points out....he hasn't seen the movie so it is hard to really make much of a comment.
There is a meeting of the leaders of the UMJC this Tuesday and Wednesday to grapple with some very deep subjects regarding the present course and future growth of the Union.
I will be praying for them to reach wise decisions and take bold action on Tuesday and Wednesday...maybe I'll fast, too.
Anyone care to join?
Upvote
0
The movie is not anti-semetic, however, it is scripturally inaccurate. It starts out in the garden of Gethsemene, and is graphic brutality from there on out. Twelve seconds of resurection....nice touch. How many languages were really written on the sign nailed to the cross? Has anyone seen the "ancient" aramaic on the promotional hand out card? I will be surprised if this movie evangelizes anyone. Just my opinion.
P.S. I am not personally attacking Mel Gibson, who may have had good intentions.
P.S. I am not personally attacking Mel Gibson, who may have had good intentions.
Upvote
0
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02192004/news/regionalnews/18338.htm
When the world flocks to something, I run in the other direction.
When the world flocks to something, I run in the other direction.
Upvote
0
The following article was taken from Aish and is written by Rabbi Benjamin Blech entitled "Mel Gibbson and the Jews":
"Soon we'll find out who is more powerful, Mel Gibson or Pope John XXIII.
Shortly before his death in 1963, the spiritual leader of Catholics round the world composed this prayer: "We realize that our brows are branded with the mark of Cain. Centuries long has Abel lain in blood and tears because we have forgotten Thy love. Forgive us the curse which we unjustly laid on the name of the Jews. Forgive us, that with our curse, we crucified Thee a second time."
It was an awesome admission that reversed almost 2000 years of unjustifiable hatred. Christian anti-Semitism, rationalized as fitting punishment for the Jews guilty of the heinous crime of deicide, killers of Christ, was officially declared "a great sin against humanity." Jews dared to hope that the distortions of ancient history which prompted Crusades, pogroms and perhaps -- as many scholars suggest -- even the world's silence during the Holocaust, were finally put to rest in the dustbin of grievously outdated theological errors.
What the Pope declared a sin, Mel Gibson has resurrected as the definitive story of the death of Jesus.
How strange then to now have the 21st century witness the re-birth of a monumental lie. What the Pope declared a sin, Mel Gibson has resurrected as the definitive story of the death of Jesus. Once again the world is told that it was the fault of "the perfidious Jews." In a movie that reeks with gruesome violence unbearable even by Hollywood standards, "The Passion of the Christ" weaves the contradictory threads of the Gospels' accounts describing the last hours of the life of Jesus into a tale that portrays a reluctant Pontius Pilate decreeing crucifixion for "the son of God" at the mad urging of a Jewish mob led by Caiaphas, the High Priest.
No, according to Gibson it wasn't the guilt of the Romans. Pontius Pilate, as the movie sees it, would never have carried out such cruel punishment. Mike Evans, a Dallas minister and head of the pro-Israel Jerusalem Prayer Team, suggested to Gibson that he might add a one-sentence message on the screen after the last scene: "During the Roman occupation, 250,000 Jews were crucified by the Romans, but only one rose from the dead." That would make clear to the average viewer that Jews, just like Jesus, were victims of the same vicious regime. But so far, that message does not appear. It would detract from the theme that runs throughout the film.
Rejecting the views of the Second Vatican Council, Gibson holds firm to his literal interpretation of the Gospels that make Jews the villains of the most horrendous crime of history: Jews killed God. In one version of the movie, the Jews utter the line that almost begs for retaliation against them to this day: "His blood be upon us and our children!" Whether this scene survives the final cut is still unknown. (It is in fact included in the version shown to Newsweek's reviewer.) But Gibson is confident that whatever he decides will be the will of God. As he's publicly stated, "The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film." And surely not even the healing words of Pope John XXIII can override a harmful conflicting message to Gibson directly from the Almighty Himself!
Keep in mind, this is from the man who admitted to saying about New York Times columnist Frank Rich, who was critical about his film, "I wanted to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog."
Most remarkable of all, to my mind, in the storm of controversy surrounding this film, is that it ought to be even more of a Christian issue than it is a Jewish problem. After all, it is the latter-day Church itself, through its spiritual leadership, that addressed this ancient question of Jewish culpability. The former Pope was courageous enough to acknowledge the Church's regrettable role in blaming the blameless. The present Pope, John Paul II, affirmed this confession as he "recognized Christian responsibility for past wrongs against Jews throughout history" and, using the Hebrew word tshuvah, "repentance," asked for forgiveness.
"The Passion of the Christ" suggests that Hollywood is wiser than His Holiness. It offers a discredited version of history that is far more fitting for "13th Century Fox" than a contemporary studio aware of the theology of papal leadership.
Those who've seen the movie (Full disclosure: I haven't yet -- but I've spoken to several people who did, both Jews and non-Jews, Rabbis and priests. I do plan on seeing the film once it comes out and will write a follow up article.) agree that the Romans fare much better than the Jews in their treatment of Jesus. As J. W. Eagan famously said, "Never judge a book by its movie." This is a film that makes the Gospels seem almost tame in their depiction of Jewish evil. Which is why it's so irrelevant to ask the question, "Is Mel Gibson really anti-Semitic?"
I am told it is almost impossible to walk out of the theater without hating the villains -- and the villains are clearly identified as Jews.
Those who wonder whether Gibson hates Jews simply don't get it. It doesn't matter. Take Gibson at his word, if you want to, and accept his profession of friendship. He may like us. But that isn't the issue. What matters is what the film is going to accomplish. Simply put, I am told it is almost impossible to walk out of the theater without hating the villains -- and the villains are clearly identified as Jews.
In a time when religions most need to teach the message of reconciliation, a film promising spiritual inspiration powerfully evokes the kind of rage that for centuries past resulted in ruthless acts of retribution.
Passion plays have a history. Jews knew that performances were almost invariably followed by pogroms. What can we expect after millions of people see this film? Some Christian leaders are offended by the very notion that this may have any relevance today. William Donahue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, attacks those who express fear of "the unintended consequences" of the movie's critical portrayal of the Jews as "pernicious." So if Jews suspect that history may be a guide to modern times, if not by way of old-fashioned pogrom but in more sophisticated contemporary guise, we're guilty of over-reacting and, worse, of even suggesting that anti-Semitism can again get out of hand.
Make no mistake. Movies create mindsets far more than any other medium. Ingmar Bergman was right. "No art passes our conscience in the way film does, and goes directly to our feelings, deep down into the dark rooms of our souls." To sit in a darkened theater and be enveloped by a larger-than-life screen is to feel that you are actually experiencing an event rather than just hearing about it. The Reverend Billy Graham, it's reported, wept bitterly when he watched "The Passion of the Christ" -- and surely it wasn't the first time he heard the story.
No passion play of the past could ever have had the emotional power of actually being present at the Crucifixion -- with the added impact of special effects that have made some viewers scream out in revulsion.
Let me make clear to Mel Gibson: I did not kill Jesus and neither did my ancestors.
Responding to criticism, Gibson denies his intent is to blame the Jews. "It's not singling them out and saying, 'They did it'. That's not so. We're all culpable. We're all guilty. We all killed Jesus."
Let me make clear to Mel Gibson that for myself, I deny any personal involvement. I didn't kill Jesus. Neither did my ancestors. Ironic, isn't it, that the same Gibson who willingly accepts universal guilt for the crime of deicide chooses only the Jews to be singled out as the real perpetrators. "We all killed Jesus," he claims -- but it's just Jews whom the movie clearly depicts as the scoundrels.
Do Jews have a right to share their concerns with those who choose to believe in a different version of history? Can Jews object to an ultraconservative Roman Catholic Hollywood icon producing a movie that reflects his personal bias?
The same freedom of speech that guarantees Gibson the right to make his film as he sees fit allows us to point out what we find so objectionable.
Gibson speaks in the name of Christianity even as he rejects the explicit pronouncements of its highest spiritual spokesmen.
Gibson claims he is guided by a desire to promote "love and forgiveness," while he stresses a stereotype of Jews that for millennia led to hate and retribution.
Gibson publicizes his film as the "historically accurate story" of the last hours of Jesus when its depiction rests far more on faith than on facts and includes scenes -- like the one showing Jewish guards brutally beating Jesus as they take him to the High Priest -- that have no basis in any New Testament source. (Some of Gibson's script is inspired by the visions of two nuns: one in 17th century Spain and the other in 18th century France.)
While the Church has made major strides forward in reaching out to Jews in reconciliation, "The Passion of Christ" takes a giant leap backwards to vicious Jew-bashing and stereotyping. As Holocaust memories fade and scholars note the resurgence of worldwide anti-Semitism, the one thing worse than the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in our times is a mass-marketed appeal to religious passion against Jews in the guise of the Gospels.
Regrettably, its very notoriety may well make this movie highly popular. That's why I pray viewers understand the reason "The Passion of Christ" so strongly fails as a spiritual message. Not only is it anti-Jewish and indifferent to the harm it will surely bring in its wake to relations between gentiles and Jews, it is so profoundly un-Christian."
Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~
"Soon we'll find out who is more powerful, Mel Gibson or Pope John XXIII.
Shortly before his death in 1963, the spiritual leader of Catholics round the world composed this prayer: "We realize that our brows are branded with the mark of Cain. Centuries long has Abel lain in blood and tears because we have forgotten Thy love. Forgive us the curse which we unjustly laid on the name of the Jews. Forgive us, that with our curse, we crucified Thee a second time."
It was an awesome admission that reversed almost 2000 years of unjustifiable hatred. Christian anti-Semitism, rationalized as fitting punishment for the Jews guilty of the heinous crime of deicide, killers of Christ, was officially declared "a great sin against humanity." Jews dared to hope that the distortions of ancient history which prompted Crusades, pogroms and perhaps -- as many scholars suggest -- even the world's silence during the Holocaust, were finally put to rest in the dustbin of grievously outdated theological errors.
What the Pope declared a sin, Mel Gibson has resurrected as the definitive story of the death of Jesus.
How strange then to now have the 21st century witness the re-birth of a monumental lie. What the Pope declared a sin, Mel Gibson has resurrected as the definitive story of the death of Jesus. Once again the world is told that it was the fault of "the perfidious Jews." In a movie that reeks with gruesome violence unbearable even by Hollywood standards, "The Passion of the Christ" weaves the contradictory threads of the Gospels' accounts describing the last hours of the life of Jesus into a tale that portrays a reluctant Pontius Pilate decreeing crucifixion for "the son of God" at the mad urging of a Jewish mob led by Caiaphas, the High Priest.
No, according to Gibson it wasn't the guilt of the Romans. Pontius Pilate, as the movie sees it, would never have carried out such cruel punishment. Mike Evans, a Dallas minister and head of the pro-Israel Jerusalem Prayer Team, suggested to Gibson that he might add a one-sentence message on the screen after the last scene: "During the Roman occupation, 250,000 Jews were crucified by the Romans, but only one rose from the dead." That would make clear to the average viewer that Jews, just like Jesus, were victims of the same vicious regime. But so far, that message does not appear. It would detract from the theme that runs throughout the film.
Rejecting the views of the Second Vatican Council, Gibson holds firm to his literal interpretation of the Gospels that make Jews the villains of the most horrendous crime of history: Jews killed God. In one version of the movie, the Jews utter the line that almost begs for retaliation against them to this day: "His blood be upon us and our children!" Whether this scene survives the final cut is still unknown. (It is in fact included in the version shown to Newsweek's reviewer.) But Gibson is confident that whatever he decides will be the will of God. As he's publicly stated, "The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film." And surely not even the healing words of Pope John XXIII can override a harmful conflicting message to Gibson directly from the Almighty Himself!
Keep in mind, this is from the man who admitted to saying about New York Times columnist Frank Rich, who was critical about his film, "I wanted to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog."
Most remarkable of all, to my mind, in the storm of controversy surrounding this film, is that it ought to be even more of a Christian issue than it is a Jewish problem. After all, it is the latter-day Church itself, through its spiritual leadership, that addressed this ancient question of Jewish culpability. The former Pope was courageous enough to acknowledge the Church's regrettable role in blaming the blameless. The present Pope, John Paul II, affirmed this confession as he "recognized Christian responsibility for past wrongs against Jews throughout history" and, using the Hebrew word tshuvah, "repentance," asked for forgiveness.
"The Passion of the Christ" suggests that Hollywood is wiser than His Holiness. It offers a discredited version of history that is far more fitting for "13th Century Fox" than a contemporary studio aware of the theology of papal leadership.
Those who've seen the movie (Full disclosure: I haven't yet -- but I've spoken to several people who did, both Jews and non-Jews, Rabbis and priests. I do plan on seeing the film once it comes out and will write a follow up article.) agree that the Romans fare much better than the Jews in their treatment of Jesus. As J. W. Eagan famously said, "Never judge a book by its movie." This is a film that makes the Gospels seem almost tame in their depiction of Jewish evil. Which is why it's so irrelevant to ask the question, "Is Mel Gibson really anti-Semitic?"
I am told it is almost impossible to walk out of the theater without hating the villains -- and the villains are clearly identified as Jews.
Those who wonder whether Gibson hates Jews simply don't get it. It doesn't matter. Take Gibson at his word, if you want to, and accept his profession of friendship. He may like us. But that isn't the issue. What matters is what the film is going to accomplish. Simply put, I am told it is almost impossible to walk out of the theater without hating the villains -- and the villains are clearly identified as Jews.
In a time when religions most need to teach the message of reconciliation, a film promising spiritual inspiration powerfully evokes the kind of rage that for centuries past resulted in ruthless acts of retribution.
Passion plays have a history. Jews knew that performances were almost invariably followed by pogroms. What can we expect after millions of people see this film? Some Christian leaders are offended by the very notion that this may have any relevance today. William Donahue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, attacks those who express fear of "the unintended consequences" of the movie's critical portrayal of the Jews as "pernicious." So if Jews suspect that history may be a guide to modern times, if not by way of old-fashioned pogrom but in more sophisticated contemporary guise, we're guilty of over-reacting and, worse, of even suggesting that anti-Semitism can again get out of hand.
Make no mistake. Movies create mindsets far more than any other medium. Ingmar Bergman was right. "No art passes our conscience in the way film does, and goes directly to our feelings, deep down into the dark rooms of our souls." To sit in a darkened theater and be enveloped by a larger-than-life screen is to feel that you are actually experiencing an event rather than just hearing about it. The Reverend Billy Graham, it's reported, wept bitterly when he watched "The Passion of the Christ" -- and surely it wasn't the first time he heard the story.
No passion play of the past could ever have had the emotional power of actually being present at the Crucifixion -- with the added impact of special effects that have made some viewers scream out in revulsion.
Let me make clear to Mel Gibson: I did not kill Jesus and neither did my ancestors.
Responding to criticism, Gibson denies his intent is to blame the Jews. "It's not singling them out and saying, 'They did it'. That's not so. We're all culpable. We're all guilty. We all killed Jesus."
Let me make clear to Mel Gibson that for myself, I deny any personal involvement. I didn't kill Jesus. Neither did my ancestors. Ironic, isn't it, that the same Gibson who willingly accepts universal guilt for the crime of deicide chooses only the Jews to be singled out as the real perpetrators. "We all killed Jesus," he claims -- but it's just Jews whom the movie clearly depicts as the scoundrels.
Do Jews have a right to share their concerns with those who choose to believe in a different version of history? Can Jews object to an ultraconservative Roman Catholic Hollywood icon producing a movie that reflects his personal bias?
The same freedom of speech that guarantees Gibson the right to make his film as he sees fit allows us to point out what we find so objectionable.
Gibson speaks in the name of Christianity even as he rejects the explicit pronouncements of its highest spiritual spokesmen.
Gibson claims he is guided by a desire to promote "love and forgiveness," while he stresses a stereotype of Jews that for millennia led to hate and retribution.
Gibson publicizes his film as the "historically accurate story" of the last hours of Jesus when its depiction rests far more on faith than on facts and includes scenes -- like the one showing Jewish guards brutally beating Jesus as they take him to the High Priest -- that have no basis in any New Testament source. (Some of Gibson's script is inspired by the visions of two nuns: one in 17th century Spain and the other in 18th century France.)
While the Church has made major strides forward in reaching out to Jews in reconciliation, "The Passion of Christ" takes a giant leap backwards to vicious Jew-bashing and stereotyping. As Holocaust memories fade and scholars note the resurgence of worldwide anti-Semitism, the one thing worse than the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in our times is a mass-marketed appeal to religious passion against Jews in the guise of the Gospels.
Regrettably, its very notoriety may well make this movie highly popular. That's why I pray viewers understand the reason "The Passion of Christ" so strongly fails as a spiritual message. Not only is it anti-Jewish and indifferent to the harm it will surely bring in its wake to relations between gentiles and Jews, it is so profoundly un-Christian."
Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~
Upvote
0
- Jun 24, 2003
- 3,698
- 271
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Charlesinflorida
Well-Known Member
Henaynei said:
Actually it was the passover. The Gospels state this clearly. The reason though for the confusion is that the passover seder of Yeshua took place in the Escene quarter, and was arranged by the Escenes. These men were the remnants of the Zadokite priesthood which had been ousted by Antiochus and replaced with the Hasmonean (Saducees). These two groups did not agree on the time of the passover and the Escenes observed it a day earlier than the Saducees running the temple service. This difference only took place for a short time, but was perfect for Gods purpose so that Messiah could have this Seder and explain its prophetic messianic meaning and then the next day beome the sacrificial lamb for the redemption of his people.
Charles in Florida
Upvote
0
Henaynei
Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai Echud! Al pi Adonai...
- Sep 6, 2003
- 21,343
- 1,805
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Constitution
By dying on the day of and at the time of the Pesakh slaughter Yeshua was clearly identifying which "time of the passover" He endorsed. If He died the day after Pesakh then He could not be the Pesakh Lamb....Charlesinflorida said:
Corinthiim Alef/1Cor 5
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Messiah our Passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the Feast,..
What scripture *says* is that it was the "day of preparation" - starting as sunset.....
He *wanted* to eat the Pesakh with his disciples - but clearly said that He would neither eat or drink again until they all met in The Kingdom. IF Yeshua had neither drunk nor eaten during the meal called "Last supper" it surely would have been noteworthy in the account. IF He did not drink of the "cup of the covenant" that He offered to the disciples then either they were rejected from the covenant or the covenant is not yet ratified - for a blood covenant to be ratified both parties must drink - if Yeshua had not drunk at the time of the "cup of the covenant" it would definately have been noteworthy in the gospels.
There is much very interesting information and quisical speculation about the Essenes - but if it conflicts with the clear scripture then it must not be elevated as an esoteric explaination that countermands the p'[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] of scripture.
Shalom,
Henaynei
Upvote
0
think the scripture is pretty clear that the jewish religious leaders rejected CHRIST and had him crucified. Pilate wanted to release Him, found no fault in him. This however does not mean God does not love them, as a gentile i must also see that it was my disobedience and waywardness that nailed CHRIST to the cross.. This has been the age of the gentiles but very soon the age of CHRIST reaching out to isreal and working in them as a nation is very near..
i actually wonder what role the movie the passion will do in this move.. From my understanding of the scriptures the antichrist is going to oppose Isreal and so will use this movie I fear.. I believe this man of perdition is alive and ready to step upand assume world leadership soon...
Also some of the extra biblical scources that suposedly Gibson used concerns me..
i actually wonder what role the movie the passion will do in this move.. From my understanding of the scriptures the antichrist is going to oppose Isreal and so will use this movie I fear.. I believe this man of perdition is alive and ready to step upand assume world leadership soon...
Also some of the extra biblical scources that suposedly Gibson used concerns me..
Upvote
0
Charlesinflorida
Well-Known Member
Henaynei said:By dying on the day of and at the time of the Pesakh slaughter Yeshua was clearly identifying which "time of the passover" He endorsed. If He died the day after Pesakh then He could not be the Pesakh Lamb....
Corinthiim Alef/1Cor 5
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Messiah our Passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the Feast,..
What scripture *says* is that it was the "day of preparation" - starting as sunset.....
He *wanted* to eat the Pesakh with his disciples - but clearly said that He would neither eat or drink again until they all met in The Kingdom. IF Yeshua had neither drunk nor eaten during the meal called "Last supper" it surely would have been noteworthy in the account. IF He did not drink of the "cup of the covenant" that He offered to the disciples then either they were rejected from the covenant or the covenant is not yet ratified - for a blood covenant to be ratified both parties must drink - if Yeshua had not drunk at the time of the "cup of the covenant" it would definately have been noteworthy in the gospels.
There is much very interesting information and quisical speculation about the Essenes - but if it conflicts with the clear scripture then it must not be elevated as an esoteric explaination that countermands the p'[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] of scripture.
Shalom,
Henaynei
MT 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? [18] And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. [19] And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
MK 14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? [13] And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. [14] And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? [15] And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. [16] And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. [17] And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
Because Messiah can only die one time we have sort of a delemna, because he needed to have that covenant cup with the disciples and he also needed to die in sync with the killing of the lambs in the Temple. The Escene provides the solution.
In this account in mark two things should be noted, the man who is to prepare the seder is a man who is very much prepared for the Lords service in advance. He has been told ahead of time by the spirit. The Escene were "Set Apart" to prepare for the Lords coming.
There is an eternal covenant between the house of David and the Zadokites. The man who they are to contact is carrying a pitcher of water, something that is normally a womans task. But the Escenes were mostly celebates, and this duty would fall to a man. Also the upper room happens to be the summer home of David, on the slopes to Mt Tzion, which is located inside the gates to the Escene Quarter, as this is where the Zadokites settled in Jerusalem after their expulsion. This same upper room comes into play again as the disciples await the Holy spirit. We see evidence of it in Peters sermon as he makes 2 or 3 references to Davids tomb or his throne being right there among them (where they were.) Later this same upper room beame the first church in Jerusalem, the church which was lead by Yaacov the brother of Yeshua. It makes perfect sence too tha he new covenant should be ratified on the seat of Davids throne. It was from this very house that David ruled over Israel.
In recent years a Grauto was discovered next to this house church with the uper room, and in the grauto were many clay viles or oil bearing the Messianic seal and the inscription f"or the oil of the spirit". Also a series of channels and tubs for Mikvahs.
Yeshua died once but also had to be concidered the high priest who entered the Holy of holies in heaven with his own blood to make atonement for us all acording to Hebrews. This would take place on the Yom Kippur. This is not one day later on the calendar as in the case of the passover, but almost 6 months later. None the less according to the scriptures he IS our high priest and DID enter the holy place with his perfect blood for us. So it does not seem too dificult for him to have a seder and still be the passover lamb.
CIF
Upvote
0
Praying for the "Passion"
© February, 2004 by Asher Intrater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the week before the grand opening of the "Passion" by Mel Gibson. I write this as a Jew, in Israel, who believes in Yeshua (Jesus) and like most others, have not yet seen the movie. In any case, this is a critical time to pray.
I must admit that the potential for the movie agrees with many things that I have already been praying for in my heart over the last few years:
* In many areas of the world, Catholic type churches are the dominant form of Christianity. Often those churches are the greatest obstacles to the spread of the gospel. Yet the millions of people in those churches are a potentially ripe field for evangelism. Particularly in the Middle East, the Greek and Armenian Orthodox churches are the only Christian structures that Muslims have access to, and have penetrated to a depth that no protestant churches have even come close to. Let us pray that this movie will touch many with a true love of Jesus.
* The Hollywood movie industry has poured tons of spiritual garbage - violence, adultery and occultism - into the airwaves around the world. The power of that particular media is awesome, and has been used mostly for evil. Let us pray for a revolution within the entertainment and mass media industry. The effective communication techniques of a Hollywood-level produced movie could be used to touch hundreds of millions of people, who could be attracted first to its artistry, and then to its message. In addition, the electronic media can pass the movie into third world nations that are otherwise closed to the gospel.
* The central message of the suffering of the Messiah on the cross is found on every page of the New Covenant, and in every teaching of the Law and the Prophets as well. Much modern preaching has sidestepped the meaning of the cross. A raw portrayal of the crucifixion could do much to revitalize even what are thought to be the most dynamic churches. In our own circles of Messianic Judaism, the message of the cross has particularly been avoided, and the result has been a widespread drop in the life of God in our midst. After all, "the message of the cross is the power of God" - I Corinthians 1:18.
* And even in Israel, and to Jewish people in general, a movie like this has the potential to reach people who would never go to a church or a Messianic congregation. (Try inviting an unsaved friend to a church or to a movie theater... ) The movie will be controversial. But controversy can also draw people's attention and cause them to think. God doesn't seem to be bothered much by controversy, anyway. How come there have been no controversies about movies showing homosexuality, drug use, and murder? Here comes a movie about the torture of Yeshua, and everyone is upset.
Is It Anti-Semitic?
Many in Jewish circles have raised the question as to whether the movie is anti-Semitic. This week the largest Hebrew newspaper in Israel ran a half page article with photo about Gibson's interview for ABC. The headline ran: "I am not anti-Semitic." The Israeli paper reported that when asked, "Who killed Jesus?" Gibson answered, "We all did. I would be the first to take the blame." The Israeli reporter did not understand the response and wrote that Gibson was avoiding the question. But still, that's a powerful quote from Gibson.
The fact that the sins of all mankind were responsible for the crucifixion of Yeshua is of course the correct answer. If a so-called Christian blames the crucifixion on the Jews, then he has apparently not recognized his own sin, and therefore invalidates his own faith. If a Jew thinks of the gospel as anti-Semitic, then he also will not deal with his own need for repentance and atonement.
Abraham Foxman, head of B'nai Brith's Anti-defamation League, was reported to have said, "Gibson is not anti-Semitic, but the film has the potential to stir up anti-Semitism." I would expand that statement this way: "Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic. The gospel story is not anti-Semitic. The problem is that many people interpret the gospel as anti-Semitic." The irony is that the Gentiles who are anti-Semitic and the Jews who fear anti-Semitism, both interpret the gospel the same way - incorrectly. When Jewish leaders say the gospel is anti-Semitic they are reinforcing the same incorrect interpretation of those who hate the Jews.
One element in removing the anti-Semitic interpretation of the gospel is to acknowledge the fact that Jesus is Jewish. How can the story be against Jews when the main hero is Himself Jewish? The priests who rejected Him were Jewish, but so were the disciples who received Him.
Was it anti-Semitic that the eleven brothers of Joseph wanted to kill him because of jealousy? Was it anti-Semitic that the Levites with Korach were swallowed directly into hell when they attacked Moses? Was it anti-Semitic that King Saul and his soldiers attacked the young David? Was it anti-Semitic that the prophets and priests in Jeremiah's generation had him arrested and thrown into a pit?
The Name "Passion"
The name "Passion" does not mean passion in the sense of feeling or desire, but rather the older root word meaning to suffer (like a patient in a hospital). There were public drama presentations of the crucifixion of Yeshua during the Middle Ages, which were called "Passion" Plays. Those passion plays represented the Jews in an evil light, denied the Jewishness of Yeshua, and were often used as opportunities to persecute Jews after the presentation. Unfortunately, it is that evil association which brings up fears of anti-Semitism.
A more correct name (although admittedly less "flashy") would have been: "The suffering of the Messiah," a name with the same meaning, but which would have communicated better, at least to Jewish people. Let us pray that in the Hebrew translation of the film that the right words would be used to communicate the story in its proper context. Let us pray that the film would not be wrongly interpreted as anti-Semitic.
Extra Portion
I do believe that the Jewish people have an extra portion of guilt and responsibility in the crucifixion of Yeshua. That is not a matter of anti-Semitism - quite the contrary - but of the chosen calling of Jews. The Jews were the nation of priests and prophets. The good guys in the story and the bad guys in the story were all Jewish. The gospel is to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. Salvation is to the Jew first and also the Gentile. As the blessings, authority and calling were to the Jew first, then so are the responsibility, guilt, and punishment.
The Jewish nation is seen as the "older brother" in the family of nations. The chosen brother gets an extra portion, both of the good and of the bad. The Jews have a special responsibility in rejecting the Messiah, because they also have a special authority in receiving the Messiah. We were those who cried, "His blood be upon us" in the courtyard, but we will also be those who will call out, "Blessed is He who comes" at the Second Coming. Those who once shouted, "Crucify Him," will also soon cry, "Crown Him."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© February, 2004 by Asher Intrater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the week before the grand opening of the "Passion" by Mel Gibson. I write this as a Jew, in Israel, who believes in Yeshua (Jesus) and like most others, have not yet seen the movie. In any case, this is a critical time to pray.
I must admit that the potential for the movie agrees with many things that I have already been praying for in my heart over the last few years:
* In many areas of the world, Catholic type churches are the dominant form of Christianity. Often those churches are the greatest obstacles to the spread of the gospel. Yet the millions of people in those churches are a potentially ripe field for evangelism. Particularly in the Middle East, the Greek and Armenian Orthodox churches are the only Christian structures that Muslims have access to, and have penetrated to a depth that no protestant churches have even come close to. Let us pray that this movie will touch many with a true love of Jesus.
* The Hollywood movie industry has poured tons of spiritual garbage - violence, adultery and occultism - into the airwaves around the world. The power of that particular media is awesome, and has been used mostly for evil. Let us pray for a revolution within the entertainment and mass media industry. The effective communication techniques of a Hollywood-level produced movie could be used to touch hundreds of millions of people, who could be attracted first to its artistry, and then to its message. In addition, the electronic media can pass the movie into third world nations that are otherwise closed to the gospel.
* The central message of the suffering of the Messiah on the cross is found on every page of the New Covenant, and in every teaching of the Law and the Prophets as well. Much modern preaching has sidestepped the meaning of the cross. A raw portrayal of the crucifixion could do much to revitalize even what are thought to be the most dynamic churches. In our own circles of Messianic Judaism, the message of the cross has particularly been avoided, and the result has been a widespread drop in the life of God in our midst. After all, "the message of the cross is the power of God" - I Corinthians 1:18.
* And even in Israel, and to Jewish people in general, a movie like this has the potential to reach people who would never go to a church or a Messianic congregation. (Try inviting an unsaved friend to a church or to a movie theater... ) The movie will be controversial. But controversy can also draw people's attention and cause them to think. God doesn't seem to be bothered much by controversy, anyway. How come there have been no controversies about movies showing homosexuality, drug use, and murder? Here comes a movie about the torture of Yeshua, and everyone is upset.
Is It Anti-Semitic?
Many in Jewish circles have raised the question as to whether the movie is anti-Semitic. This week the largest Hebrew newspaper in Israel ran a half page article with photo about Gibson's interview for ABC. The headline ran: "I am not anti-Semitic." The Israeli paper reported that when asked, "Who killed Jesus?" Gibson answered, "We all did. I would be the first to take the blame." The Israeli reporter did not understand the response and wrote that Gibson was avoiding the question. But still, that's a powerful quote from Gibson.
The fact that the sins of all mankind were responsible for the crucifixion of Yeshua is of course the correct answer. If a so-called Christian blames the crucifixion on the Jews, then he has apparently not recognized his own sin, and therefore invalidates his own faith. If a Jew thinks of the gospel as anti-Semitic, then he also will not deal with his own need for repentance and atonement.
Abraham Foxman, head of B'nai Brith's Anti-defamation League, was reported to have said, "Gibson is not anti-Semitic, but the film has the potential to stir up anti-Semitism." I would expand that statement this way: "Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic. The gospel story is not anti-Semitic. The problem is that many people interpret the gospel as anti-Semitic." The irony is that the Gentiles who are anti-Semitic and the Jews who fear anti-Semitism, both interpret the gospel the same way - incorrectly. When Jewish leaders say the gospel is anti-Semitic they are reinforcing the same incorrect interpretation of those who hate the Jews.
One element in removing the anti-Semitic interpretation of the gospel is to acknowledge the fact that Jesus is Jewish. How can the story be against Jews when the main hero is Himself Jewish? The priests who rejected Him were Jewish, but so were the disciples who received Him.
Was it anti-Semitic that the eleven brothers of Joseph wanted to kill him because of jealousy? Was it anti-Semitic that the Levites with Korach were swallowed directly into hell when they attacked Moses? Was it anti-Semitic that King Saul and his soldiers attacked the young David? Was it anti-Semitic that the prophets and priests in Jeremiah's generation had him arrested and thrown into a pit?
The Name "Passion"
The name "Passion" does not mean passion in the sense of feeling or desire, but rather the older root word meaning to suffer (like a patient in a hospital). There were public drama presentations of the crucifixion of Yeshua during the Middle Ages, which were called "Passion" Plays. Those passion plays represented the Jews in an evil light, denied the Jewishness of Yeshua, and were often used as opportunities to persecute Jews after the presentation. Unfortunately, it is that evil association which brings up fears of anti-Semitism.
A more correct name (although admittedly less "flashy") would have been: "The suffering of the Messiah," a name with the same meaning, but which would have communicated better, at least to Jewish people. Let us pray that in the Hebrew translation of the film that the right words would be used to communicate the story in its proper context. Let us pray that the film would not be wrongly interpreted as anti-Semitic.
Extra Portion
I do believe that the Jewish people have an extra portion of guilt and responsibility in the crucifixion of Yeshua. That is not a matter of anti-Semitism - quite the contrary - but of the chosen calling of Jews. The Jews were the nation of priests and prophets. The good guys in the story and the bad guys in the story were all Jewish. The gospel is to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. Salvation is to the Jew first and also the Gentile. As the blessings, authority and calling were to the Jew first, then so are the responsibility, guilt, and punishment.
The Jewish nation is seen as the "older brother" in the family of nations. The chosen brother gets an extra portion, both of the good and of the bad. The Jews have a special responsibility in rejecting the Messiah, because they also have a special authority in receiving the Messiah. We were those who cried, "His blood be upon us" in the courtyard, but we will also be those who will call out, "Blessed is He who comes" at the Second Coming. Those who once shouted, "Crucify Him," will also soon cry, "Crown Him."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upvote
0
Falling into the 'Passion' pit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Medved Feb. 19, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every day, Israel faces new attacks from terrorists determined to murder Jewish children. In France, synagogues burn, cemeteries face desecration, and leading rabbis urge their followers to shun kippot in public. In every part of the globe, the militantly secular, America-hating Left makes incongruous common cause with Islamic fundamentalism in circulating poisonous anti-Semitic canards, including ludicrous charges of Jewish conspiracies behind banking, media, "neo-conservative" foreign policy, and even the devastating attacks of 9/11.
In the midst of this alarming eruption of anti-Jewish sentiment, some usually level-headed commentators have reached the preposterous conclusion that this is the perfect moment for a ferocious new debate with our Christian neighbors on the eternal question "Who really killed Jesus?"
The fact that my otherwise savvy friend Rabbi Shmuley Boteach believes that we have any chance at all of winning this debate reflects appallingly poor judgment. And the determination by Boteach and many others to conduct the argument in an aggressive and ultimately insulting way at this precarious moment in history represents a far greater spur to anti-Semitism than any mere motion picture from Hollywood even a sure-bet box office blockbuster like Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. For the record, let me make clear that I agree with Boteach that the Christian scriptures provide an often unreliable, occasionally contradictory account of the persecution and execution of Jesus of Nazareth.
If I believed that the Gospels represented an unfailingly accurate report of the events of two thousand years ago, I'd be a Christian, not a Jew.
In defending Mel Gibson and his movie from hysterical and destructive charges of anti-Semitism, I have never suggested that the film portrays historical truth any more than one must argue that popular Moses movies, from The Ten Commandments to The Prince of Egypt, offer a precise and incontrovertible account of the Biblical story of the Exodus.
The only relevant question about The Passion of the Christ (which Boteach acknowledges he hasn't even seen) is whether or not its portrayal of the last hours of Jesus falls within the mainstream of Christian interpretation and finds support within the Gospel text.
The enthusiastic embrace of this movie by leaders of every Christian denomination, including the leading Catholic authorities, provides a definitive answer to that question and renders the specific attacks by Boteach largely irrelevant.
In fact, all of the most controversial scenes and lines of dialogue stem directly from the Gospels, chapter and verse. This means that critics of the movie inevitably train their fire on Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John rather than "Saint" Mel.
Of course, Jewish observers retain a perfect right to challenge sacred Christian texts or to denounce the altogether conventional interpretation of those texts by a major filmmaker, but one might reasonably inquire what possible purpose such arguments can serve.
By what right do Boteach and his many outspoken allies in the Jewish community demand that Mel Gibson and his innumerable supporters among Protestant and Catholic clergy should reject their own religious tradition to accept a Jewish version of the death of their savior?
After many centuries of Christian persecution of Jews, we have finally won the unquestioned right to reject the Gospel claims and yet live in peace with our gentile neighbors. But this precious right to deny the accuracy of New Testament texts does not somehow empower us to insist that our Christian fellow citizens must join us in that denial.
For reasons that defy rational explanation, Boteach insists upon picking an ugly public fight with believing Christians who view their own sacred books in the same way the rabbi views the Torah as the inerrant word of God.
To characterize elements of the Gospels as "fabrications" and "cheap frauds," as Boteach does in one of his columns, hardly helps the cause of Jewish-Christian cooperation.
HE SAYS that we must engage in this poisonous dispute in order to turn aside the mother of all blood libels and to absolve ourselves of charges of deicide. But this logic only holds if one accepts an unbreakable association between today's Jews and the corrupt Roman collaborator Caiphas, high priest in the Temple at the time of Jesus.
I refuse to accept the offensive notion that my working relationship with Christian colleagues depends upon their holding priestly authorities of 2,000 years ago blameless in the death of their Lord. Mel Gibson has repeatedly asserted his impassioned acceptance of contemporary Church teaching that today's Jews bear no blood guilt whatever, no inherited blame, for the decisions which the Sadducees may (or may not) have made in the first century.
Boteach's contention that our security and dignity today demand that Christians reject part of their own scripture to "clear" ancient Judean leaders from significant guilt in Christ's death represents a mad, arrogant obsession.
All leading contemporary theologians, Protestant as well as Catholic, echo Gibson's position that we bear no present-day responsibility for the cruel events that culminated in the crucifixion. Only Boteach embraces the utterly untenable assertion that defending ourselves requires a retroactive defense of Caiphas.
The most pressing issue regarding the current controversy is what exactly Mel Gibson's attackers hope to accomplish with their sky-is-falling denunciations of his work. He paid for the film himself (to the tune of $25 million) precisely because he wanted to realize his own religious vision without compromise.
This commitment hardly represents an act of hatred or fanaticism but a statement of the highest artistic aspiration.
Having seen the film, it's obvious that he's succeeded in creating a cinematic work of undeniable immediacy and power. It is not, by the way, about "the Jews" but rather about one particular Jew worshiped by Gibson (and two billion others) as the messiah and the deity incarnate.
As I have written in numerous venues (including Christianity Today, in a current article), Jews will not enjoy this movie, but we ought to recognize it wasn't made for us and it doesn't focus on us. The Passion of the Christ counts as a project of the Christians, by the Christians, and for the Christians.
It will open on more than 2,000 screens on February 25 and will draw literally tens of millions of eager filmgoers, regardless of calls for a boycott by Shmuley Boteach and others.
The inevitable success of the film makes it an especially foolish strategy for Jewish organizations and individuals to continue expending energy and credibility in denouncing it. This posture makes us look both mean-spirited and, finally, powerless and irrelevant.
We also fall into the devastating trap of "crying wolf." When anti-Semitic depredations fail to materialize as predicted in response to this movie, it will make it far more difficult to mobilize concern over genuine dangers in the years to come.
Above all, the misguided agony over The Passion of the Christ serves as a tragic distraction at a time when we need unity and allies more than ever before. Let us never forget that the menacing recent wave in anti-Semitism in the Middle East and around the world arises from the Islamic community and the anti-religious Left, not (so far, at least) from traditional Christians.
In this context, the challenge to Christian orthodoxy implicit in the more intemperate attacks on Mel Gibson's movie serves no constructive purpose and works to foment, rather than deflect, anti-Semitic attitudes.
When facing an onrushing express train (like this sure-to-be-popular movie), it makes little sense to stand on the track in the middle of a railroad trestle holding up a hand and pleading, "Stop!"
Or, to put it in even more commonsensical terms, when you've already placed yourself in a deep hole, it's a good idea to stop digging.
The writer, a film critic, author, and nationally syndicated radio talk show host in the US, is co-founder and former longtime president of the Pacific Jewish Center in Venice, California.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Medved Feb. 19, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every day, Israel faces new attacks from terrorists determined to murder Jewish children. In France, synagogues burn, cemeteries face desecration, and leading rabbis urge their followers to shun kippot in public. In every part of the globe, the militantly secular, America-hating Left makes incongruous common cause with Islamic fundamentalism in circulating poisonous anti-Semitic canards, including ludicrous charges of Jewish conspiracies behind banking, media, "neo-conservative" foreign policy, and even the devastating attacks of 9/11.
In the midst of this alarming eruption of anti-Jewish sentiment, some usually level-headed commentators have reached the preposterous conclusion that this is the perfect moment for a ferocious new debate with our Christian neighbors on the eternal question "Who really killed Jesus?"
The fact that my otherwise savvy friend Rabbi Shmuley Boteach believes that we have any chance at all of winning this debate reflects appallingly poor judgment. And the determination by Boteach and many others to conduct the argument in an aggressive and ultimately insulting way at this precarious moment in history represents a far greater spur to anti-Semitism than any mere motion picture from Hollywood even a sure-bet box office blockbuster like Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. For the record, let me make clear that I agree with Boteach that the Christian scriptures provide an often unreliable, occasionally contradictory account of the persecution and execution of Jesus of Nazareth.
If I believed that the Gospels represented an unfailingly accurate report of the events of two thousand years ago, I'd be a Christian, not a Jew.
In defending Mel Gibson and his movie from hysterical and destructive charges of anti-Semitism, I have never suggested that the film portrays historical truth any more than one must argue that popular Moses movies, from The Ten Commandments to The Prince of Egypt, offer a precise and incontrovertible account of the Biblical story of the Exodus.
The only relevant question about The Passion of the Christ (which Boteach acknowledges he hasn't even seen) is whether or not its portrayal of the last hours of Jesus falls within the mainstream of Christian interpretation and finds support within the Gospel text.
The enthusiastic embrace of this movie by leaders of every Christian denomination, including the leading Catholic authorities, provides a definitive answer to that question and renders the specific attacks by Boteach largely irrelevant.
In fact, all of the most controversial scenes and lines of dialogue stem directly from the Gospels, chapter and verse. This means that critics of the movie inevitably train their fire on Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John rather than "Saint" Mel.
Of course, Jewish observers retain a perfect right to challenge sacred Christian texts or to denounce the altogether conventional interpretation of those texts by a major filmmaker, but one might reasonably inquire what possible purpose such arguments can serve.
By what right do Boteach and his many outspoken allies in the Jewish community demand that Mel Gibson and his innumerable supporters among Protestant and Catholic clergy should reject their own religious tradition to accept a Jewish version of the death of their savior?
After many centuries of Christian persecution of Jews, we have finally won the unquestioned right to reject the Gospel claims and yet live in peace with our gentile neighbors. But this precious right to deny the accuracy of New Testament texts does not somehow empower us to insist that our Christian fellow citizens must join us in that denial.
For reasons that defy rational explanation, Boteach insists upon picking an ugly public fight with believing Christians who view their own sacred books in the same way the rabbi views the Torah as the inerrant word of God.
To characterize elements of the Gospels as "fabrications" and "cheap frauds," as Boteach does in one of his columns, hardly helps the cause of Jewish-Christian cooperation.
HE SAYS that we must engage in this poisonous dispute in order to turn aside the mother of all blood libels and to absolve ourselves of charges of deicide. But this logic only holds if one accepts an unbreakable association between today's Jews and the corrupt Roman collaborator Caiphas, high priest in the Temple at the time of Jesus.
I refuse to accept the offensive notion that my working relationship with Christian colleagues depends upon their holding priestly authorities of 2,000 years ago blameless in the death of their Lord. Mel Gibson has repeatedly asserted his impassioned acceptance of contemporary Church teaching that today's Jews bear no blood guilt whatever, no inherited blame, for the decisions which the Sadducees may (or may not) have made in the first century.
Boteach's contention that our security and dignity today demand that Christians reject part of their own scripture to "clear" ancient Judean leaders from significant guilt in Christ's death represents a mad, arrogant obsession.
All leading contemporary theologians, Protestant as well as Catholic, echo Gibson's position that we bear no present-day responsibility for the cruel events that culminated in the crucifixion. Only Boteach embraces the utterly untenable assertion that defending ourselves requires a retroactive defense of Caiphas.
The most pressing issue regarding the current controversy is what exactly Mel Gibson's attackers hope to accomplish with their sky-is-falling denunciations of his work. He paid for the film himself (to the tune of $25 million) precisely because he wanted to realize his own religious vision without compromise.
This commitment hardly represents an act of hatred or fanaticism but a statement of the highest artistic aspiration.
Having seen the film, it's obvious that he's succeeded in creating a cinematic work of undeniable immediacy and power. It is not, by the way, about "the Jews" but rather about one particular Jew worshiped by Gibson (and two billion others) as the messiah and the deity incarnate.
As I have written in numerous venues (including Christianity Today, in a current article), Jews will not enjoy this movie, but we ought to recognize it wasn't made for us and it doesn't focus on us. The Passion of the Christ counts as a project of the Christians, by the Christians, and for the Christians.
It will open on more than 2,000 screens on February 25 and will draw literally tens of millions of eager filmgoers, regardless of calls for a boycott by Shmuley Boteach and others.
The inevitable success of the film makes it an especially foolish strategy for Jewish organizations and individuals to continue expending energy and credibility in denouncing it. This posture makes us look both mean-spirited and, finally, powerless and irrelevant.
We also fall into the devastating trap of "crying wolf." When anti-Semitic depredations fail to materialize as predicted in response to this movie, it will make it far more difficult to mobilize concern over genuine dangers in the years to come.
Above all, the misguided agony over The Passion of the Christ serves as a tragic distraction at a time when we need unity and allies more than ever before. Let us never forget that the menacing recent wave in anti-Semitism in the Middle East and around the world arises from the Islamic community and the anti-religious Left, not (so far, at least) from traditional Christians.
In this context, the challenge to Christian orthodoxy implicit in the more intemperate attacks on Mel Gibson's movie serves no constructive purpose and works to foment, rather than deflect, anti-Semitic attitudes.
When facing an onrushing express train (like this sure-to-be-popular movie), it makes little sense to stand on the track in the middle of a railroad trestle holding up a hand and pleading, "Stop!"
Or, to put it in even more commonsensical terms, when you've already placed yourself in a deep hole, it's a good idea to stop digging.
The writer, a film critic, author, and nationally syndicated radio talk show host in the US, is co-founder and former longtime president of the Pacific Jewish Center in Venice, California.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
