← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · wild_bill
Thread ID: 11715 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2004-01-02
2004-01-02 22:43 | User Profile
"and today the censored parts may be found in minuscule type, as an appendix at the back of some Talmud editions" along with a lot of other embarrassing stuff.
[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-klinghoffer1jan01,1,6353944.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions[/url] LA TImes 'Passion' Follows the Scripture Gibson's controversial film coincides closely with ancient Jewish writings. By David Klinghoffer
January 1, 2004
Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie about the death of Jesus, "The Passion," has created an angry standoff between the filmmaker and Jewish critics who charge him with anti-Semitism. It's a controversy that will continue to affect relations between Christians and Jews unless some way to cool it can be found. One possible cooling agent is an honest look at how ancient Jewish sources portrayed the Crucifixion.
According to those who have seen a rough cut, Gibson's film depicts the death of Christ as occurring at the hands of the Romans but at the instigation of Jewish leaders, the priests of the Jerusalem Temple. The Anti-Defamation League charges that this recklessly stirs anti-Jewish hatred and demands that the film be edited to eliminate any suggestion of Jewish deicide.
But like the Christian Gospels that form the basis of Gibson's screenplay, Jewish tradition acknowledges that our leaders in 1st century Palestine played a role in Jesus' execution. If Gibson is an anti-Semite, so is the Talmud and so is the greatest Jewish sage of the past 1,000 years, Maimonides.
We will never know for certain what happened in Roman Palestine around the year 30, but we do know what Jews who lived soon afterward said about Jesus' execution.
The Talmud was compiled in about the year 500, drawing on rabbinic material that had been transmitted orally for centuries. From the 16th century on, the text was censored and passages about Jesus and his execution were erased to evade Christian wrath. But the full text was preserved in older manuscripts, and today the censored parts may be found in minuscule type, as an appendix at the back of some Talmud editions.
A relevant example comes from the Talmudic division known as Sanhedrin, which deals with procedures of the Jewish high court: "On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for 40 days [saying, 'Jesus] goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced magic, enticed and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him.' And they found nothing in his favor."
The passage indicates that Jesus' fate was entirely in the hands of the Jewish court. The last two of the three items on Jesus' rap sheet, that he "enticed and led astray" fellow Jews, are terms from Jewish biblical law for an individual who influenced others to serve false gods, a crime punishable by being stoned, then hung on a wooden gallows. In the Mishnah, the rabbinic work on which the Talmud is based, compiled about the year 200, Rabbi Eliezer explains that anyone who was stoned to death would then be hung by his hands from two pieces of wood shaped like a capital letter T ââ¬â in other words, a cross (Sanhedrin 6:4).
These texts convey religious beliefs, not necessarily historical facts. The Talmud elsewhere agrees with the Gospel of John that Jews at the time of the Crucifixion did not have the power to carry out the death penalty. Also, other Talmudic passages place Jesus 100 years before or after his actual lifetime. Some Jewish apologists argue that these must therefore deal with a different Jesus of Nazareth. But this is not how the most authoritative rabbinic interpreters, medieval sages like Nachmanides, Rashi and the Tosaphists, saw the matter.
Maimonides, writing in 12th century Egypt, made clear that the Talmud's Jesus is the one who founded Christianity. In his great summation of Jewish law and belief, the Mishneh Torah, he wrote of "Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, but was put to death by the court." In his "Epistle to Yemen," Maimonides states that "Jesus of Nazareth ââ¬Â¦ interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him."
It's unfair of Jewish critics to defame Gibson for saying what the Talmud and Maimonides say, and what many historians say. Oddly, one of the scholars who has most vigorously denounced Gibson ââ¬â Paula Fredriksen, a professor of religious studies at Boston University ââ¬â is the author of a meticulously researched book, "Jesus of Nazareth," that suggests it was the high priests who informed on Jesus to the Roman authorities.
Would it have been better if Gibson never undertook to make this movie in exactly the way he did? Maybe, but trying to intimidate him into fundamentally reworking it was never a realistic or worthy goal. The best option now is to acknowledge that other sources besides the Gospels confirm the involvement of Jewish leaders in Jesus' death and clear the anger from the air. Considering that Gibson's portrayal coincides closely with traditional Jewish belief, it seems that leaving him alone is the decent as well as the Jewish thing to do.
David Klinghoffer is a columnist for the Jewish Forward and author of the "The Discovery of God: Abraham and the Birth of Monotheism" (Doubleday, 2003) and the upcoming "Why the Jews Rejected Christ: In Search of the Turning Point in Western History."
2004-01-03 04:53 | User Profile
to even reply to you is disgusting to me. To anyone who watches this movie, you better go to confession. Jesus Christ is the undisputed Lamb of God. You think he's Jewish, you might as well think he was a grub. How DARE they comment on this, ANYONE. [url]http://www.overcomerministry.com[/url] I have no tolerance for Jews nor so called Whites. There is NO GLORY in the flesh !!! WAKE UP !! Domination is by GOD not by MAN I will NEVER see this movie, as pious as its intent is, it is an absolute BLASPHEMY TO GOD !! Any depiction of Our Lord is AUTOMATICALLY SACROSANCT. Mel Gibson and his father can do what they want, but it is still a false teaching. And if you see this movie, you are subjecting yourself to Satanic Forces who can CRUSH YOU !!! Stay straight in the FAITH, and do not acknowledge the modern day pariahs !!!!!
2004-01-03 05:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]Any depiction of Our Lord is AUTOMATICALLY SACROSANCT. [/QUOTE]
How do you figure that?
-
2004-01-03 05:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]to even reply to you is disgusting to me. To anyone who watches this movie, you better go to confession. Jesus Christ is the undisputed Lamb of God. You think he's Jewish, you might as well think he was a grub. How DARE they comment on this, ANYONE. [url]http://www.overcomerministry.com[/url] I have no tolerance for Jews nor so called Whites. There is NO GLORY in the flesh !!! WAKE UP !! Domination is by GOD not by MAN I will NEVER see this movie, as pious as its intent is, it is an absolute BLASPHEMY TO GOD !! Any depiction of Our Lord is AUTOMATICALLY SACROSANCT. Mel Gibson and his father can do what they want, but it is still a false teaching. And if you see this movie, you are subjecting yourself to Satanic Forces who can CRUSH YOU !!! Stay straight in the FAITH, and do not acknowledge the modern day pariahs !!!!![/QUOTE]
Do I take it that you think Brother Stair really has the Book of the Apocalypse figured out? I checked his website and about all I see is material on prophesy.
Personally, I don't worry much about prophesy. I once read a story about a priest who was asked what he would do if he knew the world would end tomorrow. He responded that he would cultivate his garden.
-
2004-01-03 09:01 | User Profile
So is this the villiage idiot, or is he drunk? How is sacrosanct bad?
2004-01-03 09:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Oliver Cromwell]So is this the villiage idiot, or is he drunk? How is sacrosanct bad?[/QUOTE]
When sacrosanct means sacrilegious?
2004-01-03 14:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I have no tolerance for Jews nor so called Whites.[/QUOTE]
And does this have some occult meaning?
2004-01-03 21:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Jesus Christ is the undisputed Lamb of God.[/QUOTE]
Undisputed? There are a few billion people on this earth who would disagree with you on this one. I am a Christian, but I'm not a blinded-by-faith, Bible-thumping fundamentalist who can't see past his own self-righteous nose. Yes I believe in Jesus, but I'd hardly say he's the "undisputed" Lamb of God.
[QUOTE]And if you see this movie, you are subjecting yourself to Satanic Forces who can CRUSH YOU !!![/QUOTE]
See, this is a classic case of what is wrong with these hard-core fundamentalist so-called Christians. No grip on reality.
I spent 30 years as a Jehovah's Witness, so I know the effects of mind numbing cults better than most. If that link is an indication of where your head is, I pity you.
According to your link:
Here are the commands of the Lord. 1. Get out of the cities. 2. Get out of debt. 3. Get out of the churches. 4. Get the TV out of your home. 5. Stop going to doctors. 6. Get with God's people (few in number). 7. Be prepared to wait for His coming until.
I suggest you do some research into cults. This has the makings of another Jonestown.
Dan
2004-01-04 00:55 | User Profile
Dan, that was a good post. I do think that Jesus is the Lamb of God, but you worded your post intellegently.
2004-01-14 05:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]How do you figure that?
-[/QUOTE]How dare you speak such blasphemy. ANY depiction of GOD meaning JESUS yes JESUS take that in your pipe and smoke it Hiram.
To depict Christ though actors and a play is automatically SACROSANCT. You don't know what SACROSANCT means ?? It means APART FROM TRUTH. To see this film and absorb it is a SIN AGAINST GOD BEYOND even Satanism. It is so disgusting in a deep way, some things can never be reproduced DO YOU HEAR ME some things can NEVER BE represented by the hand of man, NEVER. You watch it, be poisoned. Let it ruin you and live with that impression of falsehood, message to Mel Gibson, his father and any who participated in this FILTH - YOU PROFANE YOUR OWN GOD by your own vanity. YOU HAVE COMMITED HIGH SIN.
2004-01-14 07:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]YOU HAVE COMMITED HIGH SIN.[/QUOTE]
I disagree and wonder what scripture you use to reinforce your judgement.
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
We live in a media-soaked age, where more than likely a great majority of our populace attend the cinema regularly. If that is where the audience is I see nothing wrong with making a movie of Christ's passion in the hopes that even a few of the lost among us might be reached and led into the Faith.
Now for sure if the events portrayed in Gibson's film do not jibe with historic, Christian orthodoxy then the film deserves scorn and denounciation. But from everything I have read it seems that Gibson has gone to sincere and serious lengths to make the film as professional and scripturally accurate as possible. Movies may not be your cup of tea, but for millions of others it is. As believers we are to first check everything in light of the scriptures. If it passes that test then I would hate to be standing in front of God Almighty on Judgement Day having had fought against a medium of the Gospel message that could very well have our Lord's hand upon it. After all, this was the crime of the Pharisees whom Christ himself denounced as snakes and hypocrites. Further, we are not gnostics who view everything material as evil to be shunned, including art in its various forms. Just as surely as God sent his son to this temporal plane, he also gave us the drive and ability to create art that in its highest form of expression can illuminate the soul and give a glimpse of beautiful and eternal Truth.
2004-01-14 08:52 | User Profile
Nobody here has committed any blasphemy, Excelsius_Deo. Blasphemy has to be a deliberate act. That's what sin is: a deliberate choice to rebel against God. You can't sin by accident or through ignorance (unless willful negligence is involved). Moral responsibility depends directly on one's knowledge of right and wrong. That's why Christ said (to the Pharisees), "If you were truly blind then you would be without sin; yet you say 'we see,' so your sin remains." If God judged people in any other way, then He would be unfair; and since we assume God is perfect, He must be fair.
2004-01-14 10:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]How dare you speak such blasphemy. ANY depiction of GOD meaning JESUS yes JESUS take that in your pipe and smoke it Hiram.
To depict Christ though actors and a play is automatically SACROSANCT. You don't know what SACROSANCT means ?? It means APART FROM TRUTH. To see this film and absorb it is a SIN AGAINST GOD BEYOND even Satanism. It is so disgusting in a deep way, some things can never be reproduced DO YOU HEAR ME some things can NEVER BE represented by the hand of man, NEVER. [/QUOTE]
Why, because you say so? The Church has had depictions of Christ since the earliest days. And it still does. Even the catacombs of Rome have pictures of Christ.
I suggest you ought to do some research yourself before you come in here accusing people of satanic practices.
-
2004-01-16 04:18 | User Profile
Well, OD, and others, I know I was harsh. I know that Mel and his father have good intentions. But you know what they say about good intentions. I have heard and seen historical evidence that Jesus did not have a beard or long hair, so you are correct to state that the famous portrait of God is not the way he appeared physically. The point is that divine inspiration can yield some connection, but a portrait is one thing and a movie is another. I agree with Mel and especially Hunter, but I'm not going to give this film a stamp of approval. The Pope recently saw the film, and is forbidden to comment on it because it is beneath him by Canon Law. Truthfully, Christ lives in our HEARTS and DEEDS, visions can be given by Providence and the Will of God. As a propagation with actors and interpreted scenes, this film is automatically FALSE. It cannot be REAL in any way shape or form. I personally believe that to see it could be damaging to the soul, I am not going to risk my relationship with Our Lord and Saviour or its mental imaging by seeing it. Whether or not Mel sinned by making it is irrelevant. Perhaps he will confess it some day. But God will not be mocked.
2004-01-16 15:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo] Truthfully, Christ lives in our HEARTS and DEEDS, visions can be given by Providence and the Will of God. As a propagation with actors and interpreted scenes, this film is automatically FALSE. It cannot be REAL in any way shape or form. I personally believe that to see it could be damaging to the soul, I am not going to risk my relationship with Our Lord and Saviour or its mental imaging by seeing it. [/QUOTE]
I have to wonder then whether any physical manifestation of God is forbidden in your view? Would that include the Scriptures, theological books, Icons, crosses, hymms, liturgical items, church buildings, etc?
The movie COULD have a positive effect of bringing the message of Christ to the heathen and unbelievers. I'm not ready to condemn it.
-
2004-01-16 15:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]I have to wonder then whether any physical manifestation of God is forbidden in your view? Would that include the Scriptures, theological books, Icons, crosses, hymms, liturgical items, church buildings, etc?
The movie COULD have a positive effect of bringing the message of Christ to the heathen and unbelievers. I'm not ready to condemn it.
-[/QUOTE]
I mean to to say representation instead of manifestation.
-
2004-01-16 15:53 | User Profile
[B]The Book of Exodus, Chapter 20, KJV 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;[/B]
I talked to my Protestant pastor about Mel Gibson's "The Passion". He told me that he wouldn't see it, citing the above 2nd Commandment but moreso because of a general dislike of movies, but told me that as long as I don't bow down in the movie theater or worship the actor as Jesus, it's okay to see the movie. Bible believers already know very well the story of Christ's crucifixion but I still feel that Gibson's "Passion" will give a very real-life account of it. Almost like you were really there.....which, in fact, we were all there since we are all sinners and fall way short of the Glory of God thereby being guilty of His earthly death. However, we don't celebrate the Crucifixion but His Glorious Resurrection and the Saving Grace by which the elect are saved.
I would have really liked if Gibson included the Resurrection as part of this movie.
2004-01-16 18:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead][B]The Book of Exodus, Chapter 20, KJV 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;[/B]
I talked to my Protestant pastor about Mel Gibson's "The Passion". He told me that he wouldn't see it, citing the above 2nd Commandment but moreso because of a general dislike of movies, but told me that as long as I don't bow down in the movie theater or worship the actor as Jesus, it's okay to see the movie. [/QUOTE]
I'm glad to see the pastor understands Exodus 20. Some people go so far as to mistakenly believe Exodus 20 forbids any kind of image, even personal photographs and paintings.
-
2004-01-23 04:58 | User Profile
simply pertaining to this movie, you can see it .. I will not. On the face, any depiction of Jesus life is automatically sacrosanct as I said in other posts. But it does not damn you by seeing it, oh no, nothing in this film can damn you. Nothing except the mental impression you may walk away with. Thats the problem. Thats the profanity . try to to separate youself from this modern age and get a taste in your mouth for actual DISGUST for false presentations, as good hearted as they may be, as I told you, and will tell anyone, you Blaspheme by showing this actors play. If you think you honor God, then soon He will show you otherwise. I know your intentions are good, but you must realize. The bear fact that you dare to acclomate any presentation of GOD is evil. .. I will not see this movie, and I know there are others who could be harmed by the mental imaging.. YOU DONT UNDERSTAND MEL. SOME THINGS CAN NEVER BE REPRODUCED., Stop trying to reproduce things BEYIND YOUR understanding and START showing HUMILITY